Findings Of Fact Gardinier Big River is a New Jersey corporation authorized to transact business within the State of Florida. Gardinier is a Delaware corporation authorized to transact business within the State of Florida. Gardinier is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gardinier Big River. Petitioners were subject to the corporate income tax imposed by Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, for the tax years 1974 through 1981. For the tax years 1974 and 1975, Gardinier and Gardinier Big River each filed separate annual corporate income tax returns. Beginning with the tax year 1976, and continuing through the tax year 1981, Petitioners filed consolidated annual corporate income tax returns as authorized by Section 220.131, Florida Statutes. Annual corporate income tax returns were filed by Petitioners as follows: (a) Gardinier timely filed on April 1, 1975, an annual corporate income tax return for its tax year ending June 30, 1974; (b) Gardinier Big River timely filed on January 1, 1976, an annual corporate income tax return for its tax year ending March 31, 1975; (c) Gardinier timely filed on April 1, 1976, an annual corporate income tax return for its tax year ending June 30, 1975; (d) Petitioners timely filed on January 3, 1977, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending March 31, 1976; (e) Petitioners timely filed on March 30, 1977, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1976; (f) Petitioners timely filed on March 21, 1978, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1977; (g) Petitioners timely filed on March 27, 1979, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1978; (h) Petitioners timely filed on April 1, 1980, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1979; (i) Petitioners timely filed on April 1, 1981, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1980; (j) Petitioners timely filed on December 8, 1981, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1981. For each of the years 1974 through 1981, Petitioners, either individually or jointly, timely paid the corporate income tax which Petitioners determined to be due pursuant to Chapter 220, Florida Statutes (1983), by the return date specified in Section 220.222, Florida Statutes (1983), without regard for extensions. Specifically, corporate income taxes were paid by the Petitioners on the following dates for the following tax years: (a) tax year ending June 30, 1975--taxes paid by October 1, 1975; (b) tax year ending March 31, 1975--taxes paid by July 1, 1976; and (c) tax year ending June 30, 1980-- taxes paid by October 1, 1980. On several occasions, the latest of which was April 5, 1983, Petitioners and the Department agreed, for the tax years 1974 through 1981, to extensions of the assessment and refund limitation provisions found at Sections 214.09 and 214.16, Florida Statutes. On or about February 21, 1983, the Department commenced a corporate income tax audit of the Petitioners for the tax years 1974 through 1981. On or about April 23, 1983, as a result of the foregoing audit, the Department issued to Gardinier a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes indicating an overpayment of corporate income taxes for the tax year ending June 30, 1975, and an underpayment of corporate income taxes for the tax year ending June 30, 1974. On that same date, the Department issued to Petitioners jointly two separate Notices of Intent to Make Audit Changes indicating overpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years ending March 31, 1976, and June 30, 1980, and underpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years ending March 31, 1975, and June 30, 1979. In addition, these Notices indicated that penalty and interest assessments would be made against Gardinier for the alleged late payment of estimated taxes for the tax year ending June 30, 1975, and against Petitioners jointly for the alleged late payment of estimated taxes for the tax year ending March 31, 1976. A Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes is a form used by the Department to advise taxpayers of overpayments or underpayments of taxes determined by the Department in an audit of the taxpayers' books and records. The notice forms are also referred to by the reference "DR 802." If the taxpayer agrees with the results set forth in the notice, it is instructed by the Department to sign the notice at the space indicated thereon and return it to the Department. By letters dated July 11, 1983, the Department advised Petitioners of its receipt of an unagreed Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes from the Department's audit staff. The letters further stated that the audit resulted in a refund of taxes to Petitioners' account and that signed agreements to the refunds were required to be reviewed by the Department by September 12, 1983. By letter dated July 21, 1983, Petitioners notified the Department of their disagreement with certain aspects of the Notices of Intent to Make Audit Changes. Specifically, Petitioners disagreed with the assessment of penalty and interest for the alleged late payment of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1975 and 1976. In addition, Petitioners indicated their disagreement with the Department's failure to provide for the payment of interest on Petitioners' overpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1975, 1976, and 1980. By letter dated August 4, 1983, the Department advised Petitioners of its agreement that penalty and interest assessments should not have been made for the tax years 1975 and 1976. In addition, the Department advised Petitioners that interest would not be paid upon the overpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1975, 1976, and 1980. On August 16, 1983, Petitioners submitted to the Department signed Notices of Intent to Make Audit Changes indicating Petitioners' agreement and entitlement to a refund of the net overpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1974 through 1981. By letter dated August 16, 1983, Petitioners protested the Department's failure to pay interest upon the overpayments of corporate income taxes and made a formal claim for payment pursuant to Section 214.14, Florida Statutes (1983), for said interest. On November 10, 1983, the Department issued to Petitioners a Notice of Decision denying Petitioners' claim for interest upon the overpayments of corporate income taxes. Petitioners did not request reconsideration of this Notice of Decision. The overpayment of corporate income taxes by Gardinier for the tax year ending June 30, 1975, was $204,277.61. The overpayment of corporate income taxes by Petitioners for the tax year ending March 31, 1976, was $109,658.00. The overpayment of corporate income taxes by Petitioners for the tax year ending June 30, 1980, was $222,021.00. Total overpayments of corporate income taxes by Petitioners, either individually or jointly, for the tax years 1975, 1976, and 1980 were $535,956.61. Total underpayments of corporate income taxes by Petitioners for the tax years 1974, 1975, and 1979, including penalties and interest assessed thereon, were $153,595.92. The Department refunded to Petitioners, by checks dated October 13 and November 16, 1983, $382,360.69 which amount represented the difference between total overpayments and underpayments by Petitioners of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1974 through 1981. The provisions of Chapters 214 and 220, Florida Statutes (1983), are applicable to the circumstances of this action. The parties hereby agree that the Joint Exhibits are true and accurate copies of the original documents. It is the intent of the parties hereto that this stipulation resolve all material facts necessary for a determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties in this action.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this case are what amount of federal income tax expense is properly included as an expense in Premier's excessive profits filings for the years 2005-2007, and in light of that deduction, how much Petitioner must refund as excessive profits pursuant to section 627.215, Florida Statutes (2009)?
Findings Of Fact Premier is a foreign insurer authorized to write workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. As a workers' compensation insurer, Premier is subject to the jurisdiction of the Office. Premier began writing workers' compensation insurance coverage in Florida on January 1, 2005. The Office is a subdivision of the Financial Services Commission responsible for the administration of the Insurance Code, including section 627.215. Section 627.215(1)(a) requires that insurer groups writing workers' compensation insurance file with the Office on a form prescribed by the Commission, the calendar-year earned premium; accident-year incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses; the administrative and selling expenses incurred in or allocated to Florida for the calendar year; and policyholder dividends applicable to the calendar year. Insurer groups writing types of insurance other than workers' compensation insurance are also governed by section 627.215. Its purpose is to determine whether insurers have realized an excessive profit and if so, to provide a mechanism for determining the profit and ordering its return to consumers. Insurer groups are also required to file a schedule of Florida loss and loss adjustment experience for each of the three years prior to the most recent accident year. Section 627.215(2) provides that "[t]he incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses shall be valued as of December 31 of the first year following the latest accident year to be reported, developed to an ultimate basis, and at two 12-month intervals thereafter, each developed to an ultimate basis, so that a total of three evaluations will be provided for each accident year." Section 627.215 contains definitions that are critical to understanding the method for determining excess profits. Those definitions are as follows: "Underwriting gain or loss" is computed as follows: "the sum of the accident-year incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses as of December 31 of the year, developed to an ultimate basis, plus the administrative and selling expenses incurred in the calendar year, plus policyholder dividends applicable to the calendar year, shall be subtracted from the calendar-year earned premium." § 627.215(4). While the sum of the accident-year losses and loss adjustment expenses are required by the statute to be developed to an ultimate basis, the administrative and selling expenses are not. "Anticipated underwriting profit" means "the sum of the dollar amounts obtained by multiplying, for each rate filing of the insurer group in effect during such period, the earned premium applicable to such rate filing during such period by the percentage factor included in such rate filing for profit and contingencies, such percentage factor having been determined with due recognition to investment income from funds generated by Florida business, except that the anticipated underwriting profit . . . shall be calculated using a profit and contingencies factor that is not less than zero." § 627.215(8). Section 627.215 requires that the underwriting gain or loss be compared to the anticipated underwriting profit, which, as previously stated, is tied to the applicable rate filing for the insurer. Rate filings represent a forecast of expected results, while the excess profits filing is based on actual expenses for the same timeframe. The actual calculation for determining whether an insurer has reaped excess profits is included in section 627.215(7)(a): Beginning with the July 1, 1991, report for workers' compensation insurance, employer's liability insurance, and commercial casualty insurance, an excessive profit has been realized if the net aggregate underwriting gain for all these lines combined is greater than the net aggregate anticipated underwriting profit for these lines plus 5 percent of earned premiums for the 3 most recent calendar years for which data is filed under this section. . . Should the Office determine, using this calculation, that an excess profit has been realized, the Office is required to order a return of those excess profits after affording the insurer group an opportunity for hearing pursuant to chapter 120. OIR B1-15 (Form F) is a form that the Office has adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-189.007, which was promulgated pursuant to the authority in section 627.215. The information submitted by an insurer group on Form F is used by the Office to calculate the amount of excessive profits, if any, that a company has realized for the three calendar-accident years reported. The terms "loss adjustment expenses," and "administrative and selling expenses," are not defined by statute. Nor are they defined in rule 69O-189.007 or the instructions for Form F. Form F's first page includes section four, under which calendar-year administrative and selling expenses are listed. Section four has five subparts: A) commissions and brokerage expenses; B) other acquisition, field supervision, and collection expense; C) general expenses incurred; D) taxes, licenses, and fees incurred; and E) other expenses not included above. No guidance is provided in section 627.215, in rule 60O-189.007, or in the instructions for Form F, to identify what expenses may properly be included in the Form F filing. There is no indication in any of these three sources, or in any other document identified by the Office, that identifies whether federal income taxes are to be included or excluded from expenses to be reported in a Form F filing. While the form clearly references taxes, licenses, and fees incurred under section 4(D), the instructions do not delineate what types of taxes, licenses, and fees should be included. The instructions simply state: "for each of the expenses in item 4, please provide an explanation of the methodology used in deriving the expenses, including supporting data." On or about June 30, 2009, Premier filed its original Form F Filing with the Office pursuant to section 627.215 and rule 69O-189.007. Rule 69O-189.007 requires that a Form F be filed each year on or before July 1. On March 19, 2010, the Office issued a Notice of Intent, directing Premier to return $7,673,945.00 in "excessive profits" pursuant to section 627.215. Premier filed a petition challenging the Office's determination with respect to the amount to be refunded, based in part on its position that federal income tax expense is appropriately included as an expense for calculation of excess profits. The parties attempted to resolve their differences over the next year or so. As part of their exchange of information, Premier subsequently filed three amendments to its Form F filing on December 11, 2009; on June 21, 2010; and on January 13, 2012. In each of its amended filings, Premier included the federal income tax expense attributable to underwriting profit it earned during the 2005-2007 period. These expenses were included under section 4(E). As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, Premier filed a challenge to the Office's policy of not allowing federal income taxes to be used as an expense for excess profits filings as an unadopted rule. On July 5, 2012, a Final Order was issued in Case No. 12-1201, finding that the Office's Policy regarding the inability to deduct federal income taxes as an expense for excess profits filings met the definition of a rule and had not been adopted as a rule, in violation of section 120.54(a). The Final Order in Case No. 12-1201 directed the Office to discontinue immediately all reliance upon the statement or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action. At this point, the parties have resolved their differences with respect to all of the calculations related to the determination of excess profits, with one exception. The sole issue remaining is the amount, if any, that should be deducted as an administrative expense for payment of federal income tax. The parties have also stipulated that, before any adjustment to federal income tax is made, Premier's underwriting profit for 2005 was $2,923,157 and for 2006 was $2,119,115. For 2008, Premier suffered an underwriting loss of $785,170. Premier's federal income tax rate for all three years was 35%. The maximum amount of underwriting profit that a company can retain is the net aggregate anticipated profit, plus five percent of earned premiums for the calendar years reported on workers' compensation business. For the 2005-2007 reporting years, Premier's maximum underwriting profit is stipulated to be $1,189,892. Anything over this amount is considered excessive profits which must be returned to policyholders. The parties also agree that, prior to any deduction for federal income tax paid by Premier, the amount of excess profit earned by Petitioner and subject to return to policyholders is $3,067,220. Premier has filed a fourth amended Form F, which incorporated all of the stipulations of the parties to date. The fourth amended Form F also includes an allocation of federal income tax expense based upon the statutory allocation methodology outlined in section 220.151, Florida Statutes (2009). Section 220.151 provides the statutory method for allocating federal income tax expenses for purpose of paying Florida corporate income taxes. This section directs that insurance companies shall allocate federal taxable income based on the ratio of direct written premium the insurance company has written in Florida for the relevant period, divided by the direct written premium anywhere. Premier paid its Florida corporate income tax based upon this statutory methodology. Consistent with the methodology in section 220.151, Premier allocated its federal taxable income to the State of Florida based upon the percentage of direct premium written on risks in Florida, and reduced the amount of its federal taxable income by the amount investment income reflected on its federal tax return. Premier then multiplied the Florida portion of its taxable income by its 35% federal tax rate, resulting in the federal income tax expense allocated to Florida. For the year 2005, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return is $7,614,512.89. After subtracting investment income listed on the tax return of $969,051.97, the taxable income attributable to premium is $6,645,460.92. For 2006, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return is $6,577,534.06. After subtracting investment income of $2,011,614.86, the taxable income attributable to premium is $4,565,919.20. For 2007, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return was $4,359,742.88. After subtracting investment income of $2,266,291.99, the taxable income attributable to premium is $2,093,450.89. For the three years combined, the federal taxable income was $18,551,789.83. The amount of investment income subtracted was $5,246,958.82, leaving a balance of taxable income attributable to premium as $13,304,831.01. For the years 2005 through 2007, Premier paid $2,665,079.51; $2,302,136.92; and $1,525,910.01 respectively, in federal income tax. During those same years, Premier wrote 58.8388%; 51.2514%; and 29.8536%, respectively, of its direct premium in Florida. Allocating a portion of Premier's federal tax income and income tax liability to Florida, consistent with section 220.151, results in a calculation of Florida's portion of taxable underwriting income. For 2005, this amount is $3,910,109.46; for 2006, $2,340,097.51; and for 2007, $624,970.45. The total amount of federal taxable income allocated to Florida for the three-year period of $6,875,177.42. The taxable income is then multiplied by the applicable tax rate of 35%, which results in a federal income tax expense allocated to Florida of $1,368,538.46 for 2005; $819,034.13 for 2006; and $218,739.45 for 2007, totaling $2,406,312.10 for the three-year period at issue. The undersigned notes that Premier only writes workers' compensation insurance. It does not write other lines of insurance, which makes the allocation of earned premium much simpler than it would be for a company writing multiple lines of insurance. Under the methodology described above, Premier determined that $2,406,312.10 is the appropriate amount of federal income tax expense to be deducted for calendar years 2005-2007, resulting in an excess profit pursuant to section 627.215, of $660,907. Mr. Hester, a certified public accountant and president of Premier, testified that this methodology was used by Premier in determining its Florida corporate income tax liability. The methodology described above uses the amounts that Premier actually paid in taxes, and therefore reflects the actual expense experienced by Premier. It is accepted as a reasonable method. According to Mr. Watford, the Office does not determine the methodology that must be used in allocating expenses. The insurance company provides the methodology and the data to support it, and then the Office determines whether, in a given case, the methodology is appropriate. Premier points out that the Office has provided no guidance on how to allocate federal income tax expense for excess profits reporting. That no guidance has been offered is understandable, inasmuch as the Office holds firmly to the belief that no allowance for federal income tax expense should be made. Nonetheless, the Office reviewed the method provided by Premier and did not find it to be reasonable. Premier included in its Form F filing for the years 2005-2007 a deduction for the portion of Florida corporate income tax expense not related to investment income. The Office accepted the Florida corporate income tax deduction, which is calculated using the same allocation method Premier used to allocate federal income tax expense. Indeed, the Office acknowledged at hearing that it has permitted the methodology of direct written premium in Florida divided by direct written premium written everywhere for the determination of other expenses for excess profits filings, and has only rejected the methodology on one occasion. However, it has not accepted this same methodology for determining the appropriate amount of federal income tax expense and does not believe it to be a reasonable methodology. The rationale for this distinction is that, in Mr. Watford's view, federal income tax is "a totally different type of expense." Mr. Watford did not consult an accountant or certified public accountant in making the determination that the methodology used was impermissible. Mr. Watford opined that in order to determine that a proposed methodology is reasonable, the insurance company would need to have an adjustment in the profit factor, i.e., submit a new rate filing for the years in question; have a projected tax expense that did not exceed the expense he calculated, based on the effect on future tax expenses caused by the return of excess profits; and submit a methodology that was "appropriate for the insurance company." This approach is rejected. First, the rate filing is supposed to be a forecast, and the Office cited to no authority for adjusting the forecast in light of actual events. Further, Mr. Watford admitted that in this instance, the profit and contingencies factor is already at zero for the years at issue, and section 627.125 provides that no factor less than zero can be used to determine excess profits. Second, the excess profits statute specifies that the deduction for administrative and selling expenses is for those expenses incurred in Florida or allocated to Florida for the current year. Unlike incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses, administrative and selling expenses are not developed to an ultimate basis, which appears to be what the Office is attempting to require. Administrative expenses are incurred by calendar year.1/ Other than the net cost of re-insurance, the Office has not permitted any expense that is to be valued at a date that is later than the end of the calendar year(s) at issue in the excess profits filing. The future effect of these expenses would be considered in the year that effect is realized. Third, allowing whatever is "appropriate for the insurance company" is simply too nebulous a standard, to the extent it is a standard at all, to apply.2/ As noted by Mr. Hester, federal income tax liabilities are governed by the Internal Revenue Code and its attendant regulations, and not tied specifically to underwriting gain or loss.3/ Similarly, Florida corporate income tax liabilities are governed by Florida's taxing statutes. The fact that their calculation is not governed by the Florida Insurance Code does not change the fact that they are administrative expenses borne by the insurance company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office enter a Final Order finding that $2,406,312.10 may be deducted for federal income tax expense incurred or allocated to Florida for purposes of section 627.215, and that Premier must return $660,907.90 in excessive profits to its policyholders. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is employed as a Tax Auditor IV in Respondent's Property Tax Administration Program. He is assigned to work in Respondent's Regional Office in Jacksonville, Florida. The counties within the Jacksonville Region for Property Tax Administration are: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Putnam, St. John and Flagler. In January of 1996, Petitioner wrote to John Everton, Director of Respondent's Property Tax Administration Program requesting permission to run for Tax Collector of Clay County. In February of 1996, Petitioner talked to Mr. Everton's secretary. After making this call, Petitioner understood that Respondent's attorneys had his application to run for elective office and that he would soon receive an answer. Petitioner sent Mr. Everton an E Mail message on or about March 6, 1996. In this message, Petitioner asked Mr. Everton to check on his request to run for office and to expedite it immediately because time was of the essence. That same day, Mr. Everton responded to Petitioner's request with an E mail message. Expressing his apologies, Mr. Everton advised Petitioner that Respondent's attorneys had Petitioner's initial request. Mr. Everton stated that he would request that the attorneys respond immediately to Petitioner's inquiry. On or about March 13, 1996 Mr. Everton advised Petitioner that he would have to send his request for approval to run for local office directly to the agency head pursuant to the directive contained in Rule 60K-13.0031(1), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated March 18, 1996 Petitioner requested that Larry Fuchs, Respondent's Executive Director, grant him permission to run for Tax Collector of Clay County. Mr. Fuchs received this letter on March 29, 1996. Mr. Fuchs responded to Petitioner's request by letter dated April 5, 1996. He reminded Petitioner that Rule 60K-13.0031(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires employees to apply directly to the agency head when requesting approval to become a candidate for local office. Mr. Fuchs then gave several reasons why he could not certify to the Department of Management Services that Petitioner's candidacy would involve no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes with his state employment. More specifically, Mr. Fuchs' April 5, 1996 letter stated in relevant part that: Under section 195.002, Florida Statutes, the Department of Revenue has supervision of the tax collection and all other aspects of the administration of such taxes. Your position with the Department may require you to review or audit the activities of the office you propose to seek. Also some of your duties in supervising other officials in the administration of property taxes may be affected by your proposed candidacy. Your job requires you to review appropriate tax returns, and other records to resolve complex issues related to taxing statutes administered by the Department of Revenue. It also requires you to identify and scrutinize transactions to ascertain whether taxpayers have escaped paying property taxes. In addition, it also requires you to review and audit procedures used by counties to identify and value tangible personal property and accomplish statutory compliance, to investigate taxpayer complaints, to conduct field review with county staff as appropriate, and to provide education an assistance to county taxing officials. Because of the Department's statutory super- vision of the office of tax collector, there cannot be a certification that your candidacy would involve "no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes " with your state employment within the definitions of section 110.233(4), Florida Statutes. The letter went on to say that: This letter is a specific instruction to you that you should not qualify or become a candidate for office while employed in your current position. If you wish to commence your campaign by performing the pre-filing requirements, the law requires that you first resign from the Department. Failure to do so shall result in disciplinary action to dismiss you from your position in accordance with the Department's disciplinary standards and procedures, and Rule 60K-4.010, F.A.C., the Department's Code of Conduct, Section 110.233, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60K-13.002(3), F.A.C. After receiving the above decision, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge the denial of his request to run for Tax Collector of Clay County by letter dated April 10, 1996. Respondent received this letter on April 16, 1996. Respondent referred Petitioner's request for a formal hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 26, 1996. Petitioner responded to the Division of Administrative Hearings' Initial Order on May 7, 1996 advising the undersigned that he was unavailable for hearing May 28, 1996 through June 10, 1996 and July 5, 1996. He also included an initial pleading requesting, among other things, that Respondent immediately allow him to run for office and pay his filing fee because, in his opinion, it was too late for him to qualify using the alternative method of submitting petitions. On May 21, 1996 this matter was scheduled for hearing on July 9, 1996. Respondent filed a Unilateral Response to the Initial Order and a Prehearing Statement on May 30, 1996. On June 14, 1996 Petitioner filed a letter stating that it was impossible for him to be prepared for the hearing scheduled for July 9, 1996 for two reasons: (a) he had just returned to work after two weeks of vacation; and (b) he was overwhelmed by discovery associated with his upcoming hearing. Petitioner requested that this matter be continued until sometime after August 15, 1996. He represented that Respondent had no objection to his request. An order dated June 20, 1996 rescheduled the case for hearing on August 19, 1996. On July 18, 1996, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter granting him permission to qualify and file the necessary paperwork to become a candidate for Clay County Tax Collector. The letter also advised Petitioner of the conditions under which he could begin campaign activities while on Respondent's payroll. Respondent's change in position was due in part to the pending Final Order in Hendrick v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 96-2054. Respondent faxed its July 18, 1996 letter to Petitioner's office at 2:38 p.m. Petitioner's immediate supervisor contacted Petitioner at his home later that day at approximately 3:45 p.m. Petitioner did not request annual leave for the following day so that he could take whatever steps were necessary in order to qualify as a candidate for the office of Tax Collector. Instead, he opted to follow through with his previously arranged appointments for July 19, 1996. On July 22, 1996 Petitioner faxed a letter to Respondent indicating that Respondent had not given him sufficient time in which to meet all requirements to qualify as a candidate for elective office by noon on July 19, 1996. In order to qualify as a candidate for elective office in Clay County, Petitioner had to declare a bank depository for campaign purposes and designate a campaign treasurer. If Petitioner intended to use the alternative method of qualifying by filing petitions, he had to file an alternative affidavit and obtain petition forms from the Clay County Supervisor of Elections between January 3, 1996 and June 21, 1996. He had to submit the signed petitions (Democrats-688; Republicans-990, Independent-1,873) to the Supervisor of Elections on or before June 24, 1996. Regardless of whether Petitioner intended to qualify by paying a fee (Major Party-$5,876.40; Independent-$4,309.36) or by using the alternative petition method, he had to complete all paperwork on or before noon of July 19, 1996. Petitioner did not qualify by either method.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's request for certification to the Department of Management Services that his candidacy for the office of Clay County Tax Collector would involve no interest which conflicts, or activity which interferes, with his state employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick A. Loebig, Esquire Peter S. Fleitman, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Floyd L. Hylton 103 Century 21 Drive, Suite 213 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact During the discovery phase of this proceeding, the Department ascertained from Echo Artz that $4,070 (the "Uncontested Amount") of the assessed tax was not contested. That is, Echo Artz agreed that it owed at least that amount of the total tax assessment of $67,757.46 set forth in the Notice. Of the total amount set forth in the Notice, $54,626.25 was the tax portion and the remainder was interest. No penalties were imposed as of the date of the Notice of Proposed Assessment. The Uncontested Amount was approximately 7.5 percent of the tax portion and approximately 5.9 percent of the total assessment. At the final hearing, during discussion of the Department's Motion to Dismiss, Echo Artz stated that the Uncontested Amount was erroneous. Instead, it stated that $23,135 of the total tax assessment was actually uncontested. The total tax portion of the assessment should be, according to Echo Artz, $57,730. The revised uncontested amount was approximately 40 percent of the total tax portion. Echo Artz did not pay any of the Uncontested Amount or any of the revised uncontested amount pursuant to its own calculations. The Department asserts that inasmuch as Echo Artz failed to pay the Uncontested Amount prior to filing its request for formal hearing, the case must be dismissed as required by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Revenue, enter a final order of dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2012.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue here, Bellot Realty operated a real estate sales office in Inverness, Florida. The Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible for the operation of the state's relocation assistance payment program relating to business moves caused by road building operations of the Department or subordinate entities. Frank M. Bellot operated his real estate sales office and mortgage brokerage, under the name Bellot Realty, at property located at 209 W. Main Street in Inverness, Florida since July, 1979. He operated a barber shop in the same place from 1962 to 1979. He moved out in October, 1991 because of road construction and modification activities started by the Department in 1989. The office was located in a strip mall and the other tenants of the mall were moving out all through 1990. Mr. Bellot remained as long as he did because when the Department first indicated it would be working in the area, its representatives stated they would be taking only the back portion of the building. This would have let Mr. Bellot remain. As time went on, however, the Department took the whole building, including his leasehold, which forced him out. He received a compensation award from the Department but nothing from any other entity. Though the instant project is not a Federal Aid Project, the provisions of Section 24.306e, U.S.C. applies. That statute defined average annual net earnings as 1/2 of net earnings before federal, state and local income taxes during the two taxable years immediately prior to displacement. During 1988, Mr. Bellot's staff consisted of himself and between 3 and 5 other agents from whom he earned income just as had been the case for several prior years. In 1988 his Federal Corporate Income Tax return reflected gross income of $120,843.00 and his profit was reflected as $27,377.25. The Schedule C attached to his personal Form 1040 for that year reflected gross sales of $25,078.00 with deductions of $5,250.00 for a net income of $19,828.00. Two of his agents foresaw the downturn in business as a result of the road change and left his employ during 1989. A third got sick and her working ability, with its resultant income, was radically reduced. This agent was his biggest producer. For 1989, Petitioner's tax return reflected the company's gross receipts were down to $50,935.75 and his operating loss was $5,700.03. However, the Schedule C for the 1989 Form 1040 reflected gross revenue of $21,450 with a net profit of $14,503. In 1990, the Schedule C for the Form 1040 reflected gross receipts of $5,565.00 which, after deduction of expenses, resulted in a net profit of $1,665.00 for the year. The corporate return reflects gross receipts of $23,965.96 and a net income figure from operations of $1,282.21. Mr. Bellot contends that neither 1989 or 1990 were typical business years as far as earnings go. Aside from a loss of activity and a general decline in business in Inverness, his parents, who were always in the office due to a terminal illness, caused him lost work time as he was very busy with them. He was also involved in a move and in refurbishing a house. In 1990, Mr. Bellot decided he could no longer stay in his office location due to the fact that the Department decided to take his whole building. Even if the taking had been of only one-half the building, however, it still would have put him out of business because it would have taken his parking area. At that time, the Department was rushing Mr. Bellot to vacate the premises. He was in difficult financial straits, however, and it would not have been possible for him to move but for the Department's compensation payments. As it was, he claims, the compensation was after the fact, and he had to borrow $30,000.00 in his mother's name in order to rehabilitate the building he moved into. Instead of utilizing income figures from years in which business activity was normal, the Department chose to use the income figures from 1989 and 1990, both of which were, he claims, for one reason or another, extraordinary. In doing so, since the income in those years was much lower than normal, the compensation he received was also much lower, he claims, than it should have been. He received $8,725.50. Had the 1988 and 1989 years income been used, the payment would have been $20,000.00, the maximum. He also claims the Department used the incorrect operating expense figures concerning travel expense. The Schedule C reflects a higher deduction for automobile expense for both years, arrived at by the application of a standard mileage expense approved by the Internal Revenue Service. In actuality, the expense was considerably less and, if the real figures had been used, his income would have been increased substantially for both years. Mr. Bellot's appeal was reviewed by Ms. Long, the Department's administrator for relocation assistance who followed the provisions of departmental manual 575-040-003-c which, at paragraph (IV) on page 33 of 35, requires the displacee to furnish proof of income by tax returns or other acceptable evidence. At subparagraph (e) on page 31 of 35 of the manual, the requirement exists for the displaced business to "contribute materially" to the income of the displace person for the "two taxable years prior to the displacement." If those two years are not representative, the Department may approve an alternate two year period if "the proposed construction has already caused an outflow of residents, resulting in a decline of net income. " To grant an alternative period, then, the Department must insure that the loss of income is due to the Department's construction and not to other considerations. Here, the Department's District Administrator took the position it was not it's actions which caused the Petitioner's loss of income. Ms. Long took the same position. The Department's District 5 initially notified the people of Inverness of the proposed project somewhere around 1988. The project was to straighten Main Street out through downtown Inverness for approximately 2 miles. There is no evidence as to when the first affected party moved and Ms. Long does not know whether or not the project had an adverse effect on business in downtown Inverness. Petitioner's evidence does not show that it did.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's appeal of the Department's decision to refuse to use alternate tax years or actual mileage deduction in its calculation of a relocation assistance payment be denied. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and, in part, incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven by competent, non-hearsay, evidence. Accepted. Not proven. Merely a statement of Petitioner's position. Accepted that Petitioner's business income dropped. It cannot be said that the road project's were the primary cause of the decline in Petitioner's business. There is no independent evidence of this. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance not based on independent evidence of record. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of and attempted justification of Petitioner's position. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as argument and not Finding of Fact. Not a Finding of Fact but a recapitulation of the evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted. & 3. Accepted. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 10. Accepted. 11. & 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James R. Clodfelter Acquisitions Consultant Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 1199 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33443 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton Jpp. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner owes sales, use, intangible taxes, penalties and interest; and, if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Allor, Inc., performs accounting services through the individual, Allan Steinberg. Subsequent to an audit of one of Mr. Steinberg's clients, the Department directed Curt Horton, a tax auditor, to perform an audit of Allor, Inc. In furtherance of the audit, Mr. Horton requested records necessary to complete the review. He discussed the audit with Mr. Steinberg and advised him of all records needed. When Mr. Steinberg produced no records the audit was estimated based on the federal tax return. Later, Mr. Horton adjusted the estimate based on actual deposits for sales. For purchases, a one year period was selected and, again, the federal tax return was reviewed. The audit was performed in this manner as the records offered by the taxpayer were insufficient to perform the audit in the more conventional format. Mr. Horton made numerous requests to the taxpayer for documentation. Mr. Horton extended the time to provide records so that the taxpayer had additional opportunity to document the audit. Credit was given for invoices that the taxpayer was able to produce and, for the remainder of the period, the amounts were averaged to determine the tax amount owed. The sales and use tax audit covered the period December 1, 1985, through November 30, 1990. The amount of the tax owed was calculated at $4,933.35. The amount of the penalty was $1,099.92. The interest owed through October 11, 1991, was $2,026.61. Based upon the foregoing, the total assessment for this audit was $8,059.88 with interest continuing to accrue at the rate of $1.62 per day. With regard to the intangible tax assessment for the period 1984 through 1991, Mr. Horton computed the accounts receivable and estimated that $2,000.00 per year would be the amount for this category. Since this taxpayer filed no intangible tax returns at all, the penalty owed was high relative to the tax amount owed. Based upon the foregoing computation, the intangible tax owed calculated to be $33.33 whereas the penalty for not filing was $2,763.55. The interest through September 20, 1991, was $14.76. Based upon the foregoing, the total assessment for the intangible tax owed was $2,811.64 with interest continuing to accrue at the rate of $.01 per day. Following the audit, the results of which were made available to the taxpayer on or about March 20, 1992, the Department issued a notice of decision on April 23, 1993, which responded to a protest letter filed by Petitioner on May 15, 1992. In substance, that notice sustained the results of the audit and noted that the taxpayer had not presented any additional documentation to support a conclusion to the contrary. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed another letter of protest and the Department issued a notice of reconsideration on February 7, 1994. That notice provided that upon further review, the proposed sustained amount for the sales and use tax was $6,945.63 and the amount owed for the intangible audit assessment was $48.09. This latter amount was reduced because the Department proposed to compromise the penalty in full. All of the acts of the auditor in this case were in keeping with the standard audit practices of the Department. None of the documents marked for identification as Petitioner's composite 2, which have not been received into evidence, were made available to the Department at any time during the audit. The Department afforded the Petitioner approximately three years after the audit to produce relevant documentation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the proposed sustained amounts set forth in the notice of reconsideration dated February 7, 1994. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 28th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1892 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Allan D. Steinberg Tax Accountant Allor, Inc. Suite 14-B 4953 North University Drive Lauderhill, Florida 33351 Mark T. Aliff Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Ronald M. Shultz, violated section 473.323(1)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes (2014), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61H1-23.002(1)(a) and (b), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence and the witness testimony presented, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are found: The Florida Board of Accountancy is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of certified public accounting pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 473, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Ronald M. Shultz, is a certified public accountant (CPA) licensed in the state of Florida. Respondent has been licensed since 1997 and holds license number AC 003065. His license is currently active, and he has no history of discipline by the Board. Respondent’s address of record is 1031 Northwest 6th Street, Suite F-2, Gainesville, Florida 32601. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the owner of a CPA firm in the state of Florida, i.e., Ronald M. Shultz, CPA, PA. The firm’s license was first issued in May of 2006, and is also in active status. Respondent is the president and sole shareholder for his firm. While he employed others who worked in the firm, Respondent is ultimately responsible for all aspects of business conducted by the firm. Ronald M. Shultz, CPA, PA, is in the business of providing tax services to clients, including the preparation of federal income tax returns. The normal procedure employed in Respondent’s office required that, once a client’s tax return had been prepared, the client was called to come in and receive a copy of the return for review. The client also was given a copy of an IRS E-File signature authorization form (Form 8879), although the evidence was unclear as to when the form was given to the client. In any event, the client was usually told to review the return, and then a meeting would be scheduled to go over the return, especially in those cases where the return was complex or had a lot of “moving parts.” Once the client had an opportunity to review the return and discuss it with Respondent, the client would provide a signed copy of Form 8879 and Respondent’s firm’s personnel would electronically file the return. No return is supposed to be filed without a signed Form 8879. During the period giving rise to these proceedings, Respondent had a part-time employee named Jeff Gruver, and a former IRS-enrolled agent named Jeff Conklin. Mr. Gruver usually answered the phones, took messages, provided copies of returns to clients, and, once things were finalized with a return, electronically filed returns as directed. Mr. Gruver could answer simple tax-related questions such as, “the return indicates you are getting a refund of this amount,” or the return shows that you need to pay this much in taxes.” Any more complicated questions were fielded by Mr. Conklin, or if necessary, Mr. Shultz. Mr. Conklin is someone with whom Mr. Shultz had worked previously, and actually prepared tax returns for the firm. Mr. Shultz would generally review his work, and would go over the return with the client. During this time period, Respondent relied on Mr. Conklin to a greater extent than was his normal practice. Mr. Shultz was in the midst of a protracted divorce, and helping with the care of his father, who was in declining health. William and Jo Lee Beaty were clients of Respondent, and had been clients for several years. Respondent’s office prepared their federal income taxes since at least 2009. The Beatys’ tax return generally has a lot of “moving parts.” They typically request an extension of time for filing, and bring their paperwork to Respondent’s office early in October, in order to have the return prepared by the October 15 deadline. Normally, the Beatys will owe additional taxes. They generally reviewed the return with Mr. Shultz, signed the Form 8879, and provided a check to send to the IRS when the return was filed. In 2014, Mr. Beaty took the documents necessary for the preparation of the Beatys’ 2013 tax return to Respondent’s office. Mr. Beaty acknowledged that he often delivered the documentation very late in the process–-often just days before the October 15 deadline--but thought that this year, he had delivered it as much as six weeks before. The complaint the Beatys filed with the Department indicates that the documents were delivered on or about October 1. While Respondent had no direct knowledge of when the documents were delivered to the office, he testified that his office records indicated that it was no earlier than October 1.1/ After consideration of all of the evidence, the documents were delivered most likely sometime in very late September or on October 1, 2014. Respondent directed Jeff Conklin to prepare the Beatys’ tax return. Mr. Conklin had prepared their tax return the year before. In the days immediately preceding the October deadline, Jo Lee Beaty started calling Respondent’s office to see when she and her husband would be able to review the return and determine how much money they owed in taxes. She could not reach anyone from the firm, despite repeated phone calls. Someone from Respondent’s office (presumably either Mr. Conklin or Mr. Gruver) electronically submitted the Beatys’ 2013 federal income tax return to the IRS on October 15, 2014. However, Respondent did not review the return before it was filed and the Beatys did not see it, and were not informed as to its contents. On or about November 6, 2014, Mr. Conklin notified Mr. Shultz that he was quitting his job, effective immediately. He did not notify Respondent that there were any problems with the Beatys’ tax return. Respondent was knowledgeable about the Beatys’ prior returns, and knew that the 2013 return would include a significant amount of information, including multiple Schedule Cs, Schedule K-1s, significant information regarding businesses owned by the Beatys, and property rentals. Respondent was also aware that the Beatys typically wanted to review their tax return with him prior to its filing. Not only were the Beatys unable to contact Respondent in order to schedule a meeting prior to the tax-filing deadline, but they were unable to contact him to determine whether the return was actually filed or to determine how much money was owed. Mrs. Beaty called the office the day after the deadline and no one answered. The office was actually closed that day. Mrs. Beaty made other calls to the office, although she was unable to say specifically how many times. However, when she was still unable to speak to anyone on November 13, 2014, nearly a month after the filing deadline, she made a request to the IRS to get a copy of the couple’s tax return. The IRS sent the Beatys a transcript of their filed return that same day, although it is unclear when they received it. Mrs. Beaty continued to attempt to reach Respondent, with no success. She even spoke to Respondent’s wife on the phone, and requested that she have Respondent return Mrs. Beaty’s phone calls. Respondent first learned that the Beatys were trying to reach him when his wife called him with the message from Mrs. Beaty. Respondent finally spoke to Mrs. Beaty on November 18, 2014. During this phone call, Respondent advised Mrs. Beaty that he would have their materials ready the following week. The Beatys did not receive the return or their documents as promised. On or about December 9, 2014, Mrs. Beaty sent Respondent an email requesting their return and backup materials. The email states: Ron, We were not given an opportunity to review the return with you prior to you submitting it to the IRS electronically. I called for several days prior to the final October 15th deadline to file trying to talk with you an/or [sic] Jeff. No one was available. My calls were not returned. October 14th and 15th I called more than once trying to find out what we were going to owe so that we could be prepared to include a check with the return we would need to sign and send to the IRS. Still no return phone call. Late in the day on October 15, I was assured by Jeff Gruver that the return would be filed and we would be able to take care of everything October 16th. It is nearly two months now, we have not reviewed our return with you, for accuracy, as has been the procedure in years past. We have not received the return for our signatures and instructions for submission. It is not for a lack of trying. After the filing deadline, on October 16th we began calling the office on numerous occasions to talk with you or Jeff and get our return. We left messages both with Jeff Gruver and on the various voice mailboxes to no avail. I have driven to the office only to find the man who was renting space from you there. He knew nothing of your schedule or when I might find you. He did indicate that Jeff C. now [sic] longer worked there. After calling Debra at the numbers on your sign twice you finally called. That was on or about November 18th or 19th. You told me you needed to review the return and would get it to us that week. I told you it needed to be before Friday November 21, 2014 as I was having surgery that day. You told me it would be before my surgery. We didn’t hear from you as promised. I called again the beginning of the next week (Thanksgiving week) and left a message which you returned early Tuesday afternoon I believe. You said you would get it to me later probably that day (this was a day that you had an afternoon doctor appointment). To date I have not heard from you again and had it not been for my call to the IRS I would have no proof that the return was filed nor any idea of what we owe. We are sorry to have to terminate our relationship under these circumstances. We had previously been very satisfied with your service and as you know we had referred people to you. Ron, your negligence and non-feasance comes as a great surprise. It is nonetheless inexcusable. We are contemplating reporting your inaction to the Florida DBPR. Please respond to this email and tell me what time before 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 9, 2014, so I can pick up all of the documents we gave you to prepare our 2013 tax return, and copies of all of our records. With disappointment, Jo Beaty Respondent did not respond to this email in a timely fashion and states that he did not do so because he was not checking his email regularly due to the issues with his father’s health. As a consequence, his first response to the email was dated December 22, 2014, in which he stated in part: First speaking about your federal tax return. Jeff Conklin told me your return was complete. He then told me basically he had to quit his current position with me for personal reason [sic] and simply walked out. When I went to find your file, none of your paperwork had been copied for what we call work papers . . . . Since Jeff left your file is [sic] disarray, I had to organize your paper work so that I could do an accurate review of your return. Yesterday I completed putting all of your paper work together and is now ready for my review. My plan is to complete the review tonight. And then, we can arrange a time to meet to go over your return. Despite this communication over two months after the filing of the Beatys’ tax return, they still did not receive their tax return or supporting documentation. The Beatys hand-delivered a complaint to the Department on December 22, 2014. Respondent was sent a notification letter regarding the complaint on December 29, 2014. He placed the documentation in the Beatys’ mailbox that same day. With the tax return and supporting documentation was an invoice for his services at a 50-percent discounted rate of $350. The Beatys were going to owe money, including some interest and penalties for being late, even had they paid their taxes on October 15, because payment was actually due on April 15. The IRS charges a failure to pay proper estimate penalty of $200. When taxes are paid after the due date, the IRS also charges a penalty of .5 percent of the unpaid amount due per month, up to 25 percent of the amount due. Any portion of a month is treated as a full month. On November 24, 2014, the IRS sent the Beatys a letter notifying them that they owed their taxes, including the $200 failure to pay proper estimated tax penalty; $879.08 in penalties, and $406 in interest. Some, but not all, of the penalties and interest are due to Respondent’s failure to timely provide a copy of their tax return. The Department expended $260 in costs, not including time by the legal section, in the investigation of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Board of Accountancy enter a final order finding that Respondent, Ronald M. Shultz, violated section 473.323(1)(g) and (h), and rule 61H1-23.002(1)(a) and (b). It is further recommended that Respondent’s license be reprimanded; that he be placed on probation for a period of one year, subject to conditions determined by the Board; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500 and investigative costs of $260.00 DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as a nonresident life, health and variable annuities insurance agent should be denied on the basis of his having pled guilty and been convicted of a felony. Embodied within that general issue are the issues of whether the felony involved is one of moral turpitude and whether the conviction, and the circumstances surrounding it, demonstrate that the Petitioner lacks fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Preston Hursey, Jr., filed an application for qualification in Florida as a nonresident life, health and variable annuities agent. The application was filed on November 13, 1989. On April 9, 1990, the Department of Insurance issued a letter of denial with regard to that application based upon a felony conviction of the Petitioner in the past. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with enforcing the licensure, admission and continuing practice standards for insurance agents of all types, embodied in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, and with regulating the admission of persons to licensure as insurance agents in the State of Florida. On August 12, 1988, an Information was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, charging the Petitioner with three felony counts involving "aiding or assisting presentation of false income tax return". That is a felony violation of Title 26 U.S.C., Sections 7206(2). On November 15, 1989, the Petitioner was found guilty of three counts of aiding or assisting presentation of false income tax return in violation of that statutory section. The actual conduct for which he was convicted occurred prior to the charges. Prior to 1984, the Petitioner worked for some years as a medical examiner for insurance companies, taking medical histories, blood pressures, pulses and the like, for purposes of establishing insurance coverage for clients of the companies. Some time in early 1984, the Petitioner approached American Dynamics Corporation, as a client, with the intent of availing himself of the financial planning services of that company with the intent of saving on income taxes. The company was apparently counseling clients as to tax shelters in which they could invest or which they could claim, as a means of' avoidance of federal income tax. The Petitioner became very interested in that tax saving procedure and sometime in 1984 became involved with the firm as one of its financial counselor employees. The firm trained him in the service they offered to taxpayers, which involved financial planning by using trusts to defer taxes, as well as other means of sheltering income from tax liability. The company and the Petitioner counseled numerous clients and assisted them in taking advantage of alleged tax shelters, including the final act of preparing their tax returns. During the course of going to hearings with his clients, when their tax returns came under question by the Internal Revenue Service, the Petitioner became aware that apparently the service would not accept the tax shelter devices being used by his company and him as a legitimate means of avoiding taxes. He then sought legal advice from a tax attorney and received an opinion from him that the tax avoidance counseling methods, devices and tax return preparation the Petitioner and his employer were engaging in were not legal, and that the Petitioner should advise anyone he knew involved in such schemes to terminate their relationship. The Petitioner acted on that advice, terminated his relationship with the company and recommended to his clients that they terminate their relationship with the company and the tax avoidance devices being used. Through hindsight and learning more about relevant tax law in the last four to five years since the conduct occurred, the Petitioner realizes that the tax shelter schemes marketed by his employer at that time and, by himself, did not make financial or legal sense. The Petitioner at that time had very little training in financial counseling or advising and very little training in the Federal income tax laws arid regulations. In retrospect, after receiving much more such training as an agent of New York Life Insurance Company since that time, he realized the significance of the error he and his former employer committed. When the tax returns were prepared by the Petitioner and others employed with the firm involved, the tax return accurately reflected the gross income of he taxpayer, the "W2 forms", and all appropriate documentation. Then, the gross income of the taxpayer was shown as reduced by the amount of funds affected by the tax shelter system marketed by the Petitioner's former employer and the Petitioner. There was a statement on the tax return itself explaining the disparity in taxable income so that basically the Internal Revenue Service had the facts and circumstances of such situations disclosed to it. It, however, deemed anyone marketing such tax shelters as engaged in marketing "abusive tax shelters", in effect, in violation of the Internal Revenue Code. Ultimately, the Petitioner was prosecuted along with others involved in the transactions and suffered a felony conviction of three counts of violation of the statute referenced above. The Petitioner has steadfastly maintained both before and after his conviction that he had no intent to violate the tax laws of the United States, but rather believed, until he sought a legal opinion from a qualified attorney, that the service he was marketing was a legal one. After he came under prosecution by the Justice Department for the violation, the Petitioner cooperated fully with the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department. The felony violation of which he was convicted, by guilty plea, carried a sentence of three years imprisonment, one year for each tax return involved. That sentence was reduced by the court; however, in consideration of the circumstances of the Petitioner's offense and his cooperation with the prosecuting authorities, to one month of "work release", which he served by working during the day for senior citizens organizations and returning to a confinement facility in the evening. He also was required to render 200 hours of community service, which he has completed, and three years probation. Because of his excellent attitude and behavior and his demonstrated activities designed to further his education in the insurance and securities field, his successful pursuit of the insurance and securities marketing profession in other states and his obviously-positive motivation, his probation officer has recommended that his probation be terminated early, after only two years of it would have been completed in November, 1990. The sentence was reduced because of the Petitioner's positive record in his community, the fact that he had no prior criminal history and because of widespread support by responsible members of the community and by the probation officers who reviewed his case and situation. The judge, upon sentencing, also noted that he was impressed by the fact that the Petitioner wanted to continue to work in the insurance and securities field and was the sole support of a young son whom he was supporting and caring for as an active parent. He continues to do that. The record establishes that the Petitioner's conviction was the result of a guilty plea. That plea resulted from a negotiated "plea bargain" settlement with the prosecuting authorities. The Petitioner established with unrefuted testimony, that he never had any willful intent to commit a crime or defraud the Federal government and the Internal Revenue Service. While he had a general intent to offer the tax advice involved to clients and assist them in engaging in tax shelter arrangements and in preparing the related tax returns, he had no specific intent to commit acts which he knew to be illegal when he committed them, nor which he believed amounted to fraud or deceit of the Internal Revenue Service. Although he pled guilty to a crime involving, by the language of the above--cited statute, the element of falsity, which bespeaks of deceit or fraud, the evidence shows that the Petitioner harbored no such fraudulent or deceitful intent. This is corroborated by the fact that the Petitioner and his clients disclosed all income on the tax return and simply disclosed that a portion of it was sheltered, which procedure was determined by the Internal Revenue Service to be illegal. There was no evidence of record to indicate that the Petitioner sought to conceal income or otherwise commit a false or fraudulent act in the course of his financial and tax advice to these clients, nor in the preparation of their tax returns for submittal. While the statute he is convicted of violating appears to involve the element of moral turpitude because it refers to false or fraudulent tax returns, it is a very general type of charge which can cover many types of activities or conduct. Consequently, one should consider the specific conduct involved in a given instance, such as this one, to determine whether the crime committed factually involved moral turpitude. Based upon the unrefuted evidence of record culminating in the findings of fact made above, it is clear that the Petitioner committed no conduct involving moral turpitude at the time the activity in question was engaged in for the above reasons. The Petitioner has been in no legal altercation, criminal or otherwise, before or since the instance which occurred in 1984. He has become licensed in Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia as an insurance agent and as a broker agent. He represents numerous insurance companies, including, for approximately five years, the New York Life Insurance Company and other reputable companies. He has pursued his continuing education requirements and has earned more requirements than he needs for licensure in Florida and Maryland. He is actively seeking to improve his professional standing and competence in the insurance and securities field and is highly motivated to continue doing so. A great deal of his motivation comes from the fact that he is the sole support of his young 11-year-old son. He enjoys the insurance profession because it gives him time to participate in his son's many school-related and extracurricular activities, such as football. The Petitioner's testimony, and the proven circumstances of the situation, establish without question that he is an honest, forthright person who has candidly admitted a past mistake and who has worked actively, in the approximate six years which have elapsed since the conduct was committed, to rectify that blemish on his record. His efforts to rehabilitate himself personally and professionally involved his active participation as a parent for his son in his son's school life and otherwise, and participation in church and community activities. During the time period which has elapsed since the conduct in question occurred, he has sufficiently rehabilitated himself both personally and professionally so as to justify the finding that he has demonstrated trustworthiness and fitness to engage in the business of insurance. Indeed, three other states, after having the circumstances of his conviction fully disclosed to them, have licensed him or retained him as a licensee insurance agent. The Petitioner is a navy veteran of Vietnam, having served three tours in the Vietnam war, for which service he was decorated. He had a number of security clearances, including a top secret security clearance based upon his work in the field of communications and cryptology during that war. This honorable service, the efforts he has made to improve himself personally and professionally before and since the subject conduct occurred, the fact that it was an isolated incident on his record, the fact that it did not involve any established intent to defraud or deceive on his part, the fact that he is an active, positive parental role model, community member and church member, and his general demeanor at hearing of honesty and forthrightness convinces the Hearing Officer that the isolated incident of misconduct he committed did not involve a demonstrated lack of fitness and trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. Quite positively, the Petitioner has demonstrated his fitness and trustworthiness to engage in that business.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for licensure as a nonresident life, health and variable annuities insurance agent should be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3069 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted. 5. Rejected, as not clearly established by the evidence of record. 6-14. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted. 5. Rejected, as not clearly established by the evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Preston Hursey, Jr., pro se Post Office Box 43643 Washington, DC 20010 Willis F. Melvin, Jr., Esq. Andrew Levine, Esq. Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
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 The facets herein are undisputed. On May 31, 1973 Petitioner purchased Thomas Concrete Company, and on February 28, 1973 Petitioner purchased Kelly Builders, Inc. Both companies were forthwith liquidated and federal income tax returns were filed in which depreciation in excess of fair value of the properties was recaptured for federal tax purposes. In his state corporate income tax returns Petitioner claimed deduction for that portion of the recaptured depreciation which occured prior to November 2, 1971, the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Statute. These deductions were disallowed by the Department of Revenue, that portion of the tax relating to Thomas Concrete Company was paid under protest, the portion relating to Kelly Builders, Inc. was not paid, and this petition was filed. In 1974 Petitioner sold real property on which it made a substantial capital gain. In computing its federal income tax the full capital gain was reported. However, that portion of its capital gain accruing prior to November 2, 1971 was excluded from its Florida corporate income tax and the assessment of $50,494.75 was levied against Petitioner by Respondent, Department of Revenue for the full amount of the capital gain as income received in 1974. The two issues here involved are whether Petitioner is taxable under Chapter 220 F.S. on depreciation taken prior to the effective date of Chapter 220, and subsequently recaptured, and whether Petitioner is taxable under Chapter 220, F.S. for the full amount of capital gain realized on property held prior to the effective date of Chapter 220 where part of appreciation occurred prior to the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax law.
