The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to the repayment of funds paid to the State Treasury through overpayment or error, in relation to use taxes? The refund claim is $37,837.91. See Section 215.26, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Rathon Corporation, formerly known as Diversey Corporation, is a Delaware Corporation authorized to do business in Florida. It manufactures various detergents, cleaners, and soaps, and the equipment to dispense those products. The products are marketed in Florida and other states. The customers of the products include hotels, hospitals, factories, and restaurants. The devices that dispense the detergents, cleaners, and soaps are referred to as "feeders." Those feeders can range from simple hand soap dispensers to electronically regulated machines that inject soap into commercial dishwashers. The feeders are loaned to Petitioner's customers at no additional charge for the period of time that the customer continues to purchase the product(s) dispensed by the feeder. These circumstances existed in the period of July 1993 through March 1995. In the period of July 1993 through March 1995, Diversey Corporation, now Rathon Corporation, paid the State of Florida $58,969.22 in use tax associated with the feeders. During the period in question, the Petitioner manufactured the feeders at a facility in Santa Cruz, California. The feeders were not warehoused in the Santa Cruz facility for an extended period. They were prepared for shipment and shipped to customers in the various states, to include Florida and California customers, to be used in the places of business operated by the customers. The feeders being shipped were not packaged with other products. During the period July 1993 through March 1995, the Petitioner not only paid use tax to Florida for the feeders, it paid use tax in forty-four other states and the District of Columbia, based upon the costs of manufacturing the feeders. California was among the other forty-four states. During the period in question, Petitioner accrued and paid use taxes to Florida and California limited to the feeders used by customers in those states, based upon the product sales allocation method it used in relation to the forty-three other states and the District of Columbia. The feeders that were provided to Florida customers were shipped by common carrier. Upon their arrival in Florida no tax had been paid to California pertaining to those feeders. When the feeders arrived in Florida during the period at issue, use tax would be remitted to Florida. Subsequently, the Petitioner paid the State of California a use tax associated with the feeders that had been shipped to Florida customers and upon which a use tax had been imposed by the State of Florida and paid. The California payment is described in detail below. Petitioner had paid Florida use tax on the feeders shipped to Florida customers based on the total manufactured cost of the feeders to Petitioner, including materials, labor, and overhead. The additional use tax paid to California for those feeders was based only on the cost of materials. The overall costs of feeders allocated to Florida for the refund period was $982,803.00. Petitioner remitted a 6% use tax to Florida totaling $58,969.22 for the period in question. In 1996, Petitioner was audited for sales and use tax compliance by the State of California. That audit process included the refund period that is in question in this case, July 1993 through March 1995. Following the audit, the State of California issued a Notice of Determination asserting additional liability for tax and interest that totaled $355,753.95. Petitioner paid that assessment. The California auditor had arrived at the assessment by concluding that Petitioner owed California for 44.57% of all feeders manufactured at Petitioner's Santa Cruz facility. The 44.57% represented all newly manufactured feeders that had been loaned by Petitioner to its customers during the refund period over the entire United States. As a consequence, the assessment of use tax by the State of California included tax on feeders for which Petitioner had paid Florida $58,969.22 in use tax prior to the California assessment of $355,753.95. Petitioner did not apply for credit in California for the portion of the $355,753.95 that would relate to the feeders brought to Florida during the period in question. Petitioner took no action to obtain a credit on the amount paid to Florida as a means to reduce the California tax obligation pursuant to the 1996 audit, because Petitioner had been told that the use tax for the feeders used by Florida customers was legally due in California and not in Florida. In arriving at the determination that 44.57% of the feeders manufactured during the period in question had been loaned to customers within the continental United States, the California auditor took into account that 21.8% of the feeders and feeder parts were sold for export, leaving 78.2% to be used in the United States. Of the 78.2% remaining for the United States, 57% were complete feeders sent to customers within the United States, and 43% were repair parts that were sent to Petitioner's Cambridge Division in Maryland, where those repair parts were being stored for future use. The percentage of 44.57% was arrived at by multiplying 57% times 78.2%, representing the percent of total feeders manufactured for use in the United States that were sent to customers within the United States and not held in inventory as repair parts. Again, California based its use tax for tangible personal property manufactured in that state to include only the cost of materials. Consequently, when the California auditor computed use tax to be collected by California using the 44.57% of total feeders manufactured to be used in the United States by Petitioner's customers in the United States, the California auditor used a cost factor of 55% of overall costs which was attributable to the cost of materials only. The total cost of feeders manufactured by Petitioner in California during the period in question, as related in the California tax audit, was $19,028,714.00. The total cost manufactured for use in the United States was $8,481,098.00, representing 44.57% of the overall cost of manufacturing. When the $8,481.098.00 is multiplied by 55%, representing the cost of materials only, the total costs of the goods subject to the use tax for the period in question is $4,664,604.00. A use tax rate of 7% was applied against the amount of $4,664,604.00. To attribute the portion of use tax paid to California following the 1996 audit associated with feeders that had been sent to Florida during the period in question, the answer is derived by multiplying $982,803.00 by 55% for a total of $540,542.00, and in turn multiplying that amount by 7%, the rate of tax imposed by California. That total is $37,837.91 in use tax that was subsequently paid to California after $58,962.22 had been paid to Florida for use tax on the same feeders. Diversey Corporation sought a tax refund in the amount of $58,977.00, through an application dated August 8, 1996, in relation to the period July 1993 through March. Eventually through the decision by the Respondent in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial dated July 16, 1997, Respondent refused to grant the refund of $58,977.00. At present, Petitioner requests that it be given a refund of $37,837.91, which represents the portion of use tax paid to Florida that has been duplicated in a payment of use tax to California. Respondent, in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial entered on July 16, 1997, and based upon the facts adduced at the final hearing, premises its proposed agency action denying the refund request upon the language set for in Section 212.06(1)(a) and (7), Florida Statutes. The determination to deny the refund request was not based upon reliance on Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code. The theory for denying the refund is premised upon Respondent's argument that use tax was due to Florida, "as of the moment" feeders arrived in Florida for use in Petitioner's business operations associated with its customers. Petitioner then paid the use tax to Florida at the time the feeders arrived in Florida. Having not paid California Use Tax prior to paying Florida Use Tax, Respondent concludes, through its proposed agency action, that it need not refund to Petitioner the use taxes it paid to California at a later date. Petitioner had referred to Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, following receipt of the Notice of Proposed Refund Denial issued on December 9, 1996, possibly creating the impression that Petitioner believed that Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, would support its claim for refund. It later developed that Petitioner did not have in mind reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, to support its claim for refund. Instead, Petitioner made reference to that rule and specifically Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, as a means to perfect a challenge to Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 15, 1997, claiming that the challenged rule was an invalid exercise of authority. That challenge was assigned DOAH Case No. 97-5908RX. In summary, notwithstanding Petitioner's argument to the contrary, Respondent has never relied upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, or any other part of that rule in its proposed agency action denying the refund request. Absent Petitioner's affirmative reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, the rule has no part to play in resolving this dispute.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's request for repayment of funds paid to the State Treasury in the amount of $37,837.91, paid as use taxes for all years in question, be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Michael Madsen, Esquire Vickers, Madsen, and Goldman, LLP Suite 101 1705 Metropolitan Boulevard CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 20th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3765 John N. Upchurch, Esquire James McCauley, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue (DOR) has properly issued an assessment against Petitioner for sales and use tax, interest, and penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida resident. In 1996, Petitioner began doing business as a sole proprietor under the name of "Duraline Industries" and registered with DOR as a sales tax dealer. Later, this entity was called "Dura Steel." Petitioner also operated as a corporation, Steel Engineered Design Systems, Inc. Petitioner's Florida sales tax numbers are 42-11-009271-63 and 40-00-003416- For purposes of these consolidated cases, Petitioner has been audited and charged individually as "Charles R. Bielinski," because the audit revealed that no checks were made out to the corporation(s) and that the monies received were received by Mr. Bielinski as a sole proprietor in one or more "doing business as" categories. Petitioner engaged in the business of fabricating items of tangible personal property, i.e., prefabricated steel buildings, many of which later became improvements to real property in Florida. Petitioner used some of the steel buildings in the performance of real property contracts by installing the buildings as improvements to real property. Petitioner also engaged in the business of selling buildings and steel component parts such as sheets and trim in Florida. Petitioner sold buildings and component parts in over- the-counter retail sales, also. On October 7, 2002, DOR issued Petitioner a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records for the period of September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2002. This audit was assigned number AO226920428. In 2002, Petitioner provided DOR's auditor with his sales activity records, such as contracts and job information. A telephone conversation/interview of Petitioner was conducted by the auditor. Over a period of several months, the auditor attempted to get Petitioner to provide additional records, but none were forthcoming. DOR deemed the contracts and job information provided by Petitioner to be an incomplete record of his sales activity for the audit period. Petitioner claimed that most of his sales activity records had been lost or destroyed. Due to the absence of complete records, DOR sampled Petitioner's available records and other information related to his sales in order to conduct and complete its audit. Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate his steel buildings. Petitioner sometimes would erect the buildings on real property. Petitioner fabricated main frames for smaller buildings at a shop that he maintained at the Bonifay Airport. Otherwise, Petitioner subcontracted with like companies to fabricate main frames for larger buildings. Petitioner made some sales to exempt buyers, such as religious institutions and government entities. When he purchased the materials he used to fabricate the buildings, Petitioner occasionally provided his vendors with his resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax. Petitioner did not pay sales tax on the materials he purchased to fabricate buildings when such buildings were being fabricated for exempt buyers such as churches and governmental entities. On June 23, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Form DR-840), for audit number AO226920428, covering the period of November 1, 1997 through August 31, 2002. DOR has assessed Petitioner sales tax on the buildings, sheets, and trim he sold over-the-counter in Florida. DOR has assessed Petitioner use tax on sales of the materials used in performing real property contracts in Florida. The auditor calculated a method of estimating taxes based on the limited documentation that had been provided by Petitioner. She used a sampling method based on Petitioner's contract numbering system; isolated the Florida contracts; and divided the Florida contracts between the actual sale of tangible property (sale of just the buildings themselves) and real property contracts (where Petitioner not only provided the building but also provided installation or erection services). The auditor scheduled the real property contracts and assessed only the material amounts as taxable in Florida. Since she had only 19 out of 47 probable contracts, or 40 percent, she projected up to what the taxable amount should be and applied the sales tax and surtax at the rate of seven percent, as provided by law. She then divided that tax for the entire audit period by the 58 months in the audit period, to arrive at a monthly tax amount. This monthly tax amount was broken out into sales and discretionary sales tax. Florida levies a six percent State sales tax. Each county has the discretion to levy a discretionary sales tax. Counties have similar discretion as to a surtax. The auditor determined that Petitioner collected roughly $22,000.00 dollars in tax from one of his sales tax registrations which had not been remitted to DOR. During the five-year audit period, Petitioner only remitted tax in May 1998. DOR gave Petitioner credit for the taxes he did remit to DOR during the audit period. The foregoing audit processes resulted in the initial assessment(s) of August 28, 2003, which are set out in Findings of Fact 25-31, infra. On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR-832/833), for additional discretionary surtax, in the sum of $2,582.19; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $782.55; and penalty, in the sum of $1,289.91; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.50 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0008) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional sales and use tax in the sum of $154,653.32; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $50,500.06; and penalty, in the sum of $77,324.54, plus additional interest that accrues at $31.54 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0009) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional local governmental infrastructure surtax, in the sum of $7,001.82; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $2,352.09; and penalty in the sum of $3,497.35; plus additional interest that accrues at $1.45 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0010) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional indigent care surtax, in the sum of $513.08; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $156.33; and penalty, in the sum of $256.24; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.10 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0011) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional school capital outlay surtax in the sum of $3,084.49; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $922.23; and penalty, in the sum of $1,540.98; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.60 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0012) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional charter transit system surtax, in the sum of $2,049.22; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $766.07; and penalty, in the sum of $1,023.27; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.46 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0013) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), additional small county surtax, in the sum of $10,544.51; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $3,437.85; and penalty in the sum of $5,282.30; plus additional interest that accrues at $2.15 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0014) However, the auditor testified at the May 13, 2004, hearing that she attended Petitioner's deposition on March 18, 2004. At that time, Petitioner provided additional documentation which permitted the auditor to recalculate the amount of tax due. The auditor further testified that she separated out the contracts newly provided at that time and any information which clarified the prior contracts she had received. She then isolated the contracts that would affect the Florida taxes due. Despite some of the new information increasing the tax on some of Petitioner's individual Florida contracts, the result of the auditor's new review was that overall, the contracts, now totaling 33, resulted in a reduction in total tax due from Petitioner. These changes were recorded in Revision No. 1 which was attached to the old June 23, 2003, Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, which was sent by certified mail to Petitioner. The certified mail receipt was returned to DOR as unclaimed. The auditor's calculations reducing Petitioner's overall tax are set out in Respondent's Exhibit 16 (Revision No. 1). That exhibit appears to now show that taxes are owed by Petitioner as follows in Findings of Fact 34-40 infra. For DOAH Case No. 04-0008, discretionary surtax (tax code 013), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $1,937.37, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0009, sales and use tax (tax code 010), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $111,811.04, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0010, local governmental infrastructure surtax (tax code 016), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $5,211.00, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0011, indigent care surtax (tax code 230), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $317.39, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0012, school capital outlay tax (tax code 530), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $2,398.68, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0013, charter transit system surtax (tax code 015), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $1,558.66, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0014, small county surtax (tax code 270), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $7,211.83, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order upholding the amount of tax calculated against Petitioner in its June 21, 2003, Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, Revision No. 1, in the principal amounts as set forth in Findings of Fact Nos. 34-40, plus interest and penalty accruing per day as provided by law, until such time as the tax is paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of July, 2004.
The Issue Does Petitioner have standing to challenge Rule 12A- 1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code? If Petitioner has standing, is Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? See Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Rathon Corporation, formerly known as Diversey Corporation, is a Delaware Corporation authorized to do business in Florida. It manufactures various detergents, cleaners, and soaps, and the equipment to dispense those products. The products are marketed in Florida and other states. The customers of the products include hotels, hospitals, factories, and restaurants. The devices that dispense the detergents, cleaners, and soaps are referred to as "feeders." Those feeders can range from simple hand soap dispensers to electronically regulated machines that inject soap into commercial dishwashers. The feeders are loaned to Petitioner's customers at no additional charge for the period of time that the customer continues to purchase the product(s) dispensed by the feeder. These circumstances existed in the period of July 1993 through March 1995. In the period of July 1993 through March 1995, Diversey Corporation, now Rathon Corporation, paid the State of Florida $58,969.22 in use tax associated with the feeders. During the period in question, the Petitioner manufactured the feeders at a facility in Santa Cruz, California. The feeders were not warehoused in the Santa Cruz facility for an extended period. They were prepared for shipment and shipped to customers in the various states, to include Florida and California customers, to be used in the places of business operated by the customers. The feeders being shipped were not packaged with other products. During the period July 1993 through March 1995, the Petitioner not only paid use tax to Florida for the feeders, it paid use tax in forty-four other states and the District of Columbia, based upon the costs of manufacturing the feeders. California was among the other forty-four states. During the period in question, Petitioner accrued and paid use taxes to Florida and California limited to the feeders used by customers in those states, based upon the product sales allocation method it used in relation to the forty-three other states and the District of Columbia. The feeders that were provided to Florida customers were shipped by common carrier. Upon their arrival in Florida no tax had been paid to California pertaining to those feeders. When the feeders arrived in Florida during the period at issue, use tax would be remitted to Florida. Subsequently, the Petitioner paid the State of California a use tax associated with the feeders that had been shipped to Florida customers and upon which a use tax had been imposed by the State of Florida and paid. The California payment is described in detail below. Petitioner had paid Florida use tax on the feeders shipped to Florida customers based on the total manufactured cost of the feeders to Petitioner, including materials, labor, and overhead. The additional use tax paid to California for those feeders was based only on the cost of materials. The overall costs of feeders allocated to Florida for the refund period was $982,803.00. Petitioner remitted a 6% use tax to Florida totaling $58,969.22 for the period in question. In 1996, Petitioner was audited for sales and use tax compliance by the State of California. That audit process included the refund period that is in question in this case, July 1993 through March 1995. Following the audit, the State of California issued a Notice of Determination asserting additional liability for tax and interest that totaled $355,753.95. Petitioner paid that assessment. The California auditor had arrived at the assessment by concluding that Petitioner owed California for 44.57% of all feeders manufactured at Petitioner's Santa Cruz facility. The 44.57% represented all newly manufactured feeders that had been loaned by Petitioner to its customers during the refund period over the entire United States. As a consequence, the assessment of use tax by the State of California included tax on feeders for which Petitioner had paid Florida $58,969.22 in use tax prior to the California assessment of $355,753.95. Petitioner did not apply for credit in California for the portion of the $355,753.95 that would relate to the feeders brought to Florida during the period in question. Petitioner took no action to obtain a credit on the amount paid to Florida as a means to reduce the California tax obligation pursuant to the 1996 audit, because Petitioner had been told that the use tax for the feeders used by Florida customers was legally due in California and not in Florida. In arriving at the determination that 44.57% of the feeders manufactured during the period in question had been loaned to customers within the continental United States, the California auditor took into account that 21.8% of the feeders and feeder parts were sold for export, leaving 78.2% to be used in the United States. Of the 78.2% remaining for the United States, 57% were complete feeders sent to customers within the United States, and 43% were repair parts that were sent to Petitioner's Cambridge Division in Maryland, where those repair parts were being stored for future use. The percentage of 44.57% was arrived at by multiplying 57% times 78.2%, representing the percent of total feeders manufactured for use in the United States that were sent to customers within the United States and not held in inventory as repair parts. Again, California based its use tax for tangible personal property manufactured in that state to include only the cost of materials. Consequently, when the California auditor computed use tax to be collected by California using the 44.57% of total feeders manufactured to be used in the United States by Petitioner's customers in the United States, the California auditor used a cost factor of 55% of overall costs which was attributable to the cost of materials only. The total cost of feeders manufactured by Petitioner in California during the period in question, as related in the California tax audit, was $19,028,714.00. The total cost manufactured for use in the United States was $8,481,098.00, representing 44.57% of the overall cost of manufacturing. When the $8,481.098.00 is multiplied by 55%, representing the cost of materials only, the total costs of the goods subject to the use tax for the period in question is $4,664,604.00. A use tax rate of 7% was applied against the amount of $4,664,604.00. To attribute the portion of use tax paid to California following the 1996 audit associated with feeders that had been sent to Florida during the period in question, the answer is derived by multiplying $982,803.00 by 55% for a total of $540,542.00, and in turn multiplying that amount by 7%, the rate of tax imposed by California. That total is $37,837.91 in use tax that was subsequently paid to California after $58,962.22 had been paid to Florida for use tax on the same feeders. Diversey Corporation sought a tax refund in the amount of $58,977.00, through an application dated August 8, 1996, in relation to the period July 1993 through March. Eventually through the decision by the Respondent in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial dated July 16, 1997, Respondent refused to grant the refund of $58,977.00. At present, Petitioner requests that it be given a refund of $37,837.91, which represents the portion of use tax paid to Florida that has been duplicated in a payment of use tax to California. Respondent, in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial entered on July 16, 1997, and based upon the facts adduced at the final hearing, premises its proposed agency action denying the refund request upon the language set for in Section 212.06(1)(a) and (7), Florida Statutes. The determination to deny the refund request was not based upon reliance on Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code. The theory for denying the refund is premised upon Respondent's argument that use tax was due to Florida, "as of the moment" feeders arrived in Florida for use in Petitioner's business operations associated with its customers. Petitioner then paid the use tax to Florida at the time the feeders arrived in Florida. Having not paid California Use Tax prior to paying Florida Use Tax, Respondent concludes, through its proposed agency action, that it need not refund to Petitioner the use taxes it paid to California at a later date. Petitioner had referred to Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, following receipt of the Notice of Proposed Refund Denial issued on December 9, 1996, possibly creating the impression that Petitioner believed that Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, would support its claim for refund. It later developed that Petitioner did not have in mind reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, to support its claim for refund. Instead, Petitioner made reference to that rule and specifically Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, as a means to perfect a challenge to Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 15, 1997, claiming that the challenged rule was an invalid exercise of authority. That challenge was assigned DOAH Case No. 97-5908RX. In summary, notwithstanding Petitioner's argument to the contrary, Respondent has never relied upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, or any other part of that rule in its proposed agency action denying the refund request. Absent Petitioner's affirmative reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, the rule has no part to play in resolving this dispute. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with Sections 120.56, 120.569(1), and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner sought repayment of funds paid into the State Treasury for use taxes for the period of July 1993 through March 1995. See Section 215.26(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent, in defending its decision to deny the repayment, has consistently relied upon provisions within Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, as well as the language within Section 215.26(1), Florida Statutes. In particular, Respondent has relied upon the language at Section 212.06(7), Florida Statutes, in defending its proposed agency action. Petitioner did not look to the provisions of Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, to assist the Petitioner in its refund claim. Instead, Petitioner claims that an inference has been created that Respondent utilized Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, to determine the refund question adverse to the interest of Petitioner. Petitioner believes this creates the opportunity to challenge the rule. Given that Respondent did not rely upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, to defend against the Request for Repayment of Funds, Petitioner is not substantially affected by the rule and is not entitled to seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED: That Petitioner's challenge to the validity of Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, is DISMISSED.1 DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 20th day of April, 1998.
The Issue The issues are: Whether Latin America Sales made unreported sales which became subject to sales tax because they went unreported? Are purchases of inventory by Latin America Sales from overseas vendors subject to state use tax while temporarily warehoused in Miami and before export? Are purchases of inventory of Latin America Sales subject to state use tax because of its failure to register as a dealer, although its purchases would be exempt had it registered?
Findings Of Fact The Assessments The Department of Revenue assessed sales and use tax against Latin America Sales International for the period February 1, 1985 to June 30, 1987, in the amount of $114,682.88, a penalty of $28,670.72, and interest of $19,704.39, for a total of $163,057.99. It also assessed sales and use tax against the taxpayer for the period July 1, 1987 to January 31, 1988, in the amount of $72,374.71, a penalty of $18,093.68, and interest of $4,655.37, for a total of $95,123.76. These taxes were assessed for three reasons, failure to pay sales tax, failure to pay use tax and failure to pay tax due on rentals of space used to store sewing machine inventory in Florida. Sales Tax Latin America Sales International, Inc., is a Florida Corporation organized in 1975 by Cuban immigrants Ricardo and Elsie Miranda. It was formed to avail itself of a benefit created by the Internal Revenue Code for companies which qualified as western hemisphere trading corporations. Under 26 U.S.C. Section 921, a substantial tax reduction was available to United States corporations which made at least 95% of their sales to buyers outside of the United States, and within the western hemisphere. Mr. and Mrs. Miranda and a Mr. Ricardo Gomez had been operating a business known as Richards Sewing Machines Company, which sold industrial sewing machines both domestically and in Central American countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and in Jamaica. They bought the industrial sewing machines in Taiwan and Italy. To take advantage of the deduction available to a western hemisphere trading corporation, Mr. and Mrs. Miranda incorporated Latin America Sales International, Inc. (Latin America). On its federal corporate income tax returns which were prepared by its certified public accountant, Eugene Drascher, Latin America obtained a deduction for its activities as a western hemisphere trading corporation for its fiscal years ending October 31, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980. Ultimately, this federal deduction was phased out. Richards Sewing Machines had been registered properly with the Florida Department of Revenue as a dealer and a payor of sales and use taxes, but no similar registration was filed for Latin America when it was formed. Mr. Drascher advised Mr. and Mrs. Miranda that the sales by Latin America would be made outside the United States, and consequently Florida was not entitled to collect sales tax from the foreign buyer, and that Latin America was only involved in importing and exporting industrial sewing machine inventory for resale, so the corporation was not responsible to pay use tax to the State of Florida on those sewing machines in its inventory. In essence, the CPA advised Mr. and Mrs. Miranda that there were no reports concerning sales and use tax to be filed and no reportable sales or use tax due from Latin America. This advice about reports was erroneous, and the failure of Latin America to register as a dealer has serious financial consequences with respect to liability for use tax. To allow persons claiming to engage in tax exempt sales to file no returns or to avoid registration entirely would provide a means of tax evasion which could be easily abused. All vendors must register and file tax returns so the Department of Revenue will be aware the vendor is in business and so the Department can audit to verify claims that sales are made in a way which is tax exempt. Some accomodations are made for tax exempt export sales; for instance, vendors may apply to file their returns semi-annually or annually rather than monthly. After the tax deduction available to western hemisphere trading corporations was phased out, Mr. and Mrs. Miranda continued to use Latin America to make foreign sales because the corporation had made a name for itself in the export market. In essence, Latin America had built up good will with its foreign customers. Latin America continued to engage only in export sales; it made no domestic sales within the United States or the State of Florida, except sales to other exporters. On those few occasions, Latin America obtained an appropriate resale certificate from the buyer/exporter. Latin America never filed any returns with the Florida Department of Revenue with respect to its inventory purchased from overseas vendors in Taiwan or Italy. Even if exempt, these purchases should have been reported as property held for export on schedule B of an annual sales tax return, under a dealer registration number Latin America should have obtained. (Tr. 118) Latin America received shipments of containers of sewing machines at the Miami free port, but because rent there was so expensive, Latin America transferred the inventory to a warehouse in Miami, after a customs broker paid the applicable federal customs duties on behalf of Latin America. Latin America never registered as an exporter with the State of Florida. Latin America never filed any returns with respect to gross sales made of its inventory stored in Miami which it exported to customers in the Caribbean or Central America. These sales should have been reported to the Department of Revenue under a dealer registration number as exempt sales. (Tr. 118) Richards Sewing Machines Company, which handled domestic sales and which was appropriately registered with the Department of Revenue, made proper and timely filings of all Florida Department of Revenue sales tax returns, Forms DR-15. The Department of Revenue initially audited the sales tax payments of Richards Sewing Machines, and the results of that audit are not at issue here directly. The Mirandas maintained their invoices in alphabetical order by vendor, so that invoices for Richards Sewing Machines and Latin America were physically located in the same file cabinet, although it would be obvious to the Mirandas from the face of the invoice whether the sale was one made by Richards Sewing Machine (a domestic sale), or Latin America (an export sale).1 Similarly, a single journal was used by Ms. Miranda to record the dollar amount of sales by both corporations. Each entry contained the purchaser, the sale date, the invoice number, the total amount of the sale, and if tax were collected on that sale, the amount of tax. Mrs. Miranda then used that journal to file on Form DR-15 with the Department of Revenue the gross amount of sales, taxable sales, and remit the tax collected by Richards Sewing Machines. No such filings were made by Latin America because the Mirandas had been advised by their accountant that no sales tax was due on export sales and none had been collected. Actually, returns showing that all sales were exempt should have been filed. See, Finding 7, above. In performing the audit of Richards Sewing Machines, the Department's auditors used that corporation's United States Corporate Income Tax Return, IRS Form 1120, for the applicable years, and compared the gross sales reported on those forms to the federal government with the amount of gross sales Richards Sewing Machines had reported monthly to the State of Florida on its Florida Sales and Use Tax Form, Form DR-15. The gross sales shown on the federal returns, Form 1120, for Richards Sewing Machines were 7.49 million dollars over the three years of the audit (1984, 1985 and 1986). Over the same period, Richards Sewing Machines had shown gross sales on Florida Department of Revenue Forms DR-15 of 7.46 million dollars. There was a $33,000 discrepancy, amounting to less than 1/2 of one percent. The Department's auditor never found any evidence that any sales made by Latin America failed to have attached a resale certificate, or a bill of lading showing that the machinery or parts sold were shipped outside the United States (Tr. 45, 110-11, 126, 129-30). The actual invoices, resale certificates and bills of lading have been destroyed. After the completion of the audit on Richards Sewing Machines, the auditor told Mrs. Miranda there was no further need to keep those records, and relying on that advice, Mrs. Miranda disposed of the records (Tr. 84-5). The Department never contested that this advice was given to Mrs. Miranda. Due to the commingling of the invoices and the sales journal for Richards Sewing Machines and Latin America, the auditor for the Florida Department of Revenue decided to audit Latin America, and received authorization to do so. The auditor believed that the total sales tax owed by these two separate legal entities had been combined and reported together on one Florida Department of Revenue Form DR-15, but separate Federal Income Tax Returns, Form 1120, had been filed for each of the two companies. She believed that the total gross sales for both companies on the federal tax returns should have equalled the amount shown on the DR-15s filed with Florida by Richards Sewing Machines. The auditor then determined that a percentage of sales should be computed for each year in order to prorate the sales reported on the DR-15s for each company, Richards Sewing Machines and Latin America. The methodology used was that the total sales reported on the Federal Forms 1120 filed by Richard Sewing Machines and Latin America for each of their fiscal years was prorated to a calendar year, to derive a monthly average gross sales for each entity. (Richards and Latin America had different fiscal years). The average was then multiplied by the applicable number of months in each calendar year to arrive at the annual sales total for each company. The estimated sales for each company were then divided by the total sales for both companies to obtain the percentage of sales for each company. Latin America's percentage was then applied to the gross sales report of the monthly DR-15s to determine its estimated gross sales for each month. (Department Exhibit 1, Audit Report, Page 9.) The monthly average of gross sales derived from Latin America's IRS Form 1120, was compared with its estimated monthly gross sales reported on the DR-15. For each month Latin America reported higher gross sales based on its IRS form, the difference was treated as unreported Florida sales and taxed at 5%. There is no logical reason for the Department to have engaged in its proration calculations. There is no credible evidence that any sales by Latin America to its export customers were subject to sales tax in Florida. Mrs. Miranda had prepared a list for the auditor which separated all invoices to demonstrate that all sales by Latin America were export sales. Appropriate bills of lading or certificates of resale for sales by Latin America were in the files. There is no reasonable basis to accept the Department's contention that State Form DR-15s filed by Richards Sewing Machines reflect combined sales figures for both Latin America and Richards Sewing Machines. The Department makes its argument because using the sales journal kept by Mrs. Miranda, the amount of sales tax due according to the journal is the same amount recorded on the DR-15s, but Richards Sewing Machines reported $33,000 more in sales to the federal government. From that the Department's witnesses somehow infer that the DR-15s reflected sales from both companies. The more reasonable inference here, however, is that the figures in the sales journal and DR-15 forms match because all sales by Latin America were foreign sales on which no tax was due, no tax was collected, and no tax was carried on the sales journal. When the amount of sales tax collected was computed from the sales journal, and reported by Mrs. Miranda on the State DR-15, that figure dealt solely with sales by Richards Sewing Machines. To the extent there is any discrepancy in the total sales Richards Sewing Machines reported to the State of Florida and to the Federal Government on Federal Form 1120, that discrepancy is due to a bookkeeping error. A small amount of additional tax was due on sales by Richards Sewing Machines in the years 1984 to 1986 ($33,000 times 5% or about $1,500). The evidence does not support an inference that taxable sales from both corporations were combined in the sales journal kept by Mrs. Miranda, and were then reported as a lump sum figure on the DR-15 filed by Richards Sewing Machines. The Department argues that its proration process did not tax Latin America for sales which were reported, because the Department agreed to recognize proper bills of lading or certificates of resale from customers of Latin America as justification for not collecting sales tax. It does, however, believe that tax should be assessed against Latin America for unreported sales, i.e., on the gross sales derived from its IRS Form 1120. Because the evidence is persuasive that Latin America made no sales which were taxable in Florida, the Department's argument is rejected as lacking a factual basis. All sales by Latin America were to exporters who gave a resale certificate to Latin America, or to foreign purchasers who provided an appropriate bill of lading showing that the material was exported from the State of Florida. It is true, however, that Latin America was required to file information returns reporting all of its sales, both gross and exempt. Its report would have shown all sales were exempt, and no tax was due. The mere failure to have filed the report does not make those export sales taxable. Use Tax Use tax is due for two reasons. Latin America made purchases of sewing machines and equipment from foreign manufacturers in Taiwan and Italy. It imported those machines and parts into the United States to an airport free zone. The machines and parts then cleared customs and were moved to a warehouse in Miami at 2303 Northwest 2nd Avenue, which interrupted the export process. Secondly, the failure of Latin America to have registered as a dealer has an important affect on its liability for use tax. Because it was never registered as a dealer during the audit period, it was impossible for Latin America to execute and deliver a certificate of resale to its Taiwanese and Italian suppliers of the industrial sewing machines it received and warehoused in Miami. Latin America introduced no proof that it was already contractually obligated to sell its inventory overseas at the time it was delivered to the free zone, or when it was removed from the free zone. Therefore, when Latin America removed the industrial sewing machines or parts from the airport free zone and stored them in its warehouse at 2303 Northwest 2nd Avenue in Miami, it engaged in a taxable event. The bills of lading showing eventual export of its inventory are insufficient to avoid the use tax, for "tax will apply if the property is diverted in transit to the purchaser," Rule 12A-1.064(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Under use tax law, removing those sewing machines from the stream of international commerce subjected them to use tax, even though Latin America may have harbored a subjective intent of ultimately reselling them to foreign purchasers in the Caribbean and Central America. Moreover, by failing to file as a dealer, Latin America also failed to report its purchases from its Taiwanese and Italian suppliers as exempt sales for which use tax was not due on schedule B of an annual return. It should have filed as a dealer engaged in resale. That failure to file a return is not the reason use tax is due, however. Latin America may be assessed use tax because it was not a registered dealer, took possessions of the sewing machines in Florida, and was unable to give a valid dealer's certificate of resale to its Taiwanese and Italian suppliers because it had never registered as a dealer. The tax is due at the rate of 5% on purchases made from its suppliers beginning February 1, 1985 to January 31, 1988, plus interest. See audit report, page 16- 17, Schedule B. Penalty There is no reason to assess any penalty on the use tax due in this case. The tax payer's failure to register as a dealer or to file information returns was based on the advice of a CPA, and that advice was facially reasonable. The Department is not required to impose a penalty if the applicable penalty, here 25% of the tax due, "would be too severe or unjust." Rule 12A-1.056(9)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Had Latin America registered as a dealer and given its suppliers a certificate of resale, no tax at all may have been due. There is no indication of some intent to evade a tax. Rather, laxness of the tax payer has rendered a transaction otherwise tax free fully taxable. Payment of the tax and interest is penalty enough. Commercial Rental Latin America offered no evidence with respect to the assessment the Department made for taxes due on commercial rentals. The amount involved is small, for the period November 1985 through June 1987, the tax due is $184.16.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing use tax on inventory imported into Florida, plus interest and for tax due on commercial rentals, with interest. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 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 30th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-0136 Rulings on proposals by Latin America: Discussed in Findings 4, 22 and 25. There is no credible evidence that Latin America ever actually sold sewing machines to Richards Sewing Machines for resale in the domestic market. There was, however, no legal impediment to doing so. Covered in paragraph 7, 8 and 11. Covered in Findings 17-19. Covered in Finding 10. The proposed findings based on materials which may have been produced in response to the Department's first request for production of documents have no bearing on this case, for they were not introduced into evidence at the final hearing. The testimony that all sales by Latin America were for export or to other exporters has been accepted. Rulings on proposals by the Department: Covered in Finding 1. Covered in Finding 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 17, although both corporations did file their own Form 1120s. The methodology is described in Finding 18. The methodology is described in Finding 18. Rejected because State Form DR-15 did not reflect combined sales figures. See, Findings 19 and 20. Rejected. See, Finding 21, although it is true that Latin America was not registered as a dealer, see, Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Findings 9 and 10. Adopted in Findings 9, 24 and 25. Adopted in Finding 24. Copies furnished: Mark R. Vogel, Esquire 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami Center, Suite 880 Miami, FL 33131 Matt Goldman, Esquire 1001 South Bayshore Drive Suite 1712 Miami, FL 33131 Linda Miklowitz, Esquire Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 William D. Moore, General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 J. Thomas Herndon, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact On a date prior to November 2, 1971, petitioner exchanged property it then held for property it now holds. This transaction resulted in a capital gain for petitioner, although recognition of the gain has been deferred for federal tax purposes. For such purposes, petitioner's basis in the property it presently holds is deemed to be the same as its basis in the property it formerly held. On its own books, however, petitioner has stated its basis in the property it now holds as the market value of the property at the time it was acquired. This figure is higher than the figure used for federal tax purposes. Working from this higher figure, petitioner states larger depreciation allowances on its own books than it claims for federal tax purposes. On its 1973 Florida corporation income tax return, petitioner claimed these depreciation allowances instead of the smaller depreciation allowances it claimed on its federal income tax return for the same period.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent assess a deficiency against petitioner based on the income not stated in its 1973 return because of its unauthorized depreciation claim, together with interest and applicable penalties. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Philip Rouadi, C.P.A. 781 Wymore Road Maitland, Florida 32751 E. Wilson Crump, Esquire Post Office Box 5557 Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner owes unpaid sales and use tax, interest, and penalties for the period of February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings are made. Petitioner, Macfarlane, Ferguson, & McMullen, P.A., ("Macfarlane"), is a law firm located in Tampa, Florida. In May 1993, Macfarlane entered into a Copy Control Services Agreement ("1993 Contract") with Copy Control Center ("CCC"). The 1993 Contract, which was effective for three years, called for CCC to provide copying services within the physical confines of the MacFarlane law firm. CCC provided the personnel and MacFarlane provided the equipment and space for copying. The 1993 Contract called for a flat rate charge to Macfarlane. This stated flat rate charge covered a maximum number of copies each month. Pursuant to the terms of the 1993 Contract, so long as MacFarlane did not make more than 160,000 copies per month, it was charged a flat rate of $10,000 per month. Additional copy-related work over the flat rate charge for the maximum of 160,000 copies was at additional cost. An appendix to the 1993 Contract set forth the additional costs not covered by the flat monthly fee. If no copies were made under the contract, the base fee of the $10,000 would still have to be paid by Macfarlane. Paragraph 4 of the 1993 Contract required CCC to bill Macfarlane "monthly for the preceding month's copies." That paragraph of the 1993 Contract also provides that, "[i]ncluded with the invoice will be a detailed monthly usage report." The invoices issued under the 1993 Contract listed all costs for the month or preceding month. At the bottom of each invoice, CCC listed a total "sale amount" which consisted of the total of the copying facilities management charge and the additional charges. Between May 1993 and January 1994, Macfarlane paid sales tax on the total amount invoiced under the 1993 Contract (i.e. for all goods (copies) and services). In 1993 and 1994, the Department audited CCC. The audit was conducted by Elizabeth Sanchez, an auditor employed by the Department. Based on the 1993 and 1994 audit of CCC, the Department, through its auditor, Ms. Sanchez, alleged that CCC was not properly collecting sales tax from its clients, such as Macfarlane. Specifically, Ms. Sanchez determined that CCC should not have been taxing the entire cost of the 1993 Contract since a portion of the contract was related to services. Instead, the auditor represented that CCC should only tax the direct materials for the photocopy process (paper, toner, developer, and other supplies). Ultimately, CCC was assessed $16,000 in back taxes because it failed to pay sales tax on direct materials. During the aforementioned audit of CCC, Ms. Sanchez developed a formula which CCC could use in charging sales and use taxes to its clients. The formula was discussed with CCC personnel. CCC believed that the formula devised by Ms. Sanchez required or allowed the allocation of tax between nontaxable services and taxable photocopy consumables. Based on its understanding of the formula, CCC quit taxing Macfarlane for the entire amount of the monthly invoices issued under the 1993 Contract. Rather, consistent with its understanding of what was allowed under Ms. Sanchez's formula, CCC modified its billing to allocate tax between what CCC considered to be the facilities management services rendered under the 1993 Contract and the photocopy consumables used under that contract. The Department does not dispute that Ms. Sanchez developed a formula during the 1993 and 1994 audit of CCC. In fact, in the Department's Response to Petitioner's Request for Admissions, the Department admits that "Ms. Sanchez did audit Copy Control Center . . . and did develop a formula during that audit." However, the Department contends that the formula developed by Ms. Sanchez has no basis in law and fact and her actions are contrary to Rule 12A-1.0161(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code. According to the Department, that Rule requires both a statement of the actual cost of the taxable sales and the nontaxable services and the separation of taxable sales from non-taxable services in a contract or invoice for the service to be untaxed. In 1996, Macfarlane executed a new Copy Control Services Agreement with CCC (the "1996 Contract"). The 1996 Contract, dated May 22, 1996, was in effect from May 1996 through April 30, 2000. The 1996 Contract contained similar terms and conditions as the 1993 Contract, including a flat-rate charge and a maximum number of copies before additional charges were imposed. The flat-rate charge in the 1996 contract was $10,200 and the maximum number of copies before additional charges were imposed increased to 170,000. Additional copy- related work over the flat rate charge was at additional cost. The additional costs not covered by the flat monthly fee were set forth in an appendix to the 1996 Contract. Paragraph 6 of the 1996 Contract was entitled "Invoices." That section provides in pertinent part the following: A summary invoice for all Customer Locations shall be sent by Copy Control to the bill-to address and contact person of the Customer set forth hereinbelow, on a monthly basis. The monthly minimum base charge will be invoiced on the first day of each month. Additional charges for copies in excess of target volume or additional services from the previous month will be included with this invoice. In addition, Copy Control specifically agrees to provide to such Customer contact person, on a monthly in arrears basis, a summary report of the C.C.M. [Copy Control Management] Services transaction activity at, (A) all Customer Locations; and, (B) the Copy Control back-up facility, if any ("Summary Report"). Each Summary Report will contain, at a minimum, the following information: The total volume of Copies rendered; The number of Copies rendered per Customer location; The number of Copies above the Targeted Copy Volume, if any, and total Excess Copy Charge therefor by Customer Location and Copy Control back-up facility; The volume of Copies and associated dollar amount rendered at Copy Control's back-up facility, if any; The number of Copies "short" of Targeted Copy Volume; Additional Supplies procured, if any; Amount of overtime paid, if any, for Copy Control Personnel and dates therefor; A description of the Related Services, if any provided by Copy Control and the charge(s) therefore, if any; (emphasis supplied) Consistent with the terms of the 1996 Contract, CCC rendered an invoice to Macfarlane each month during the term of the contract and during the remainder of the audit period covered by that contract. Each invoice listed charges for making copies and off-site copies and other copy-related work and/or materials and products. Under the line for "Copying Facilities Mgt. Billing" were the additional charges made according to the appendix to the contract. The following invoice, dated June 30, 1995, is representative of the monthly invoices issued by CCC to Macfarlane during the period covered by the Department's audit of Macfarlane. That invoice provides in material part the following: COPY CONTROL CENTER INVOICE NO. 131611 3907 W. Osborne Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 SOLD TO: MacFarlane Ausley & et al 23rd Floor LeeAnn Conley 111 E. Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 INVOICE DATE 6/30/95 QYT. ORDERED 1 QTY. SHIPPED 1 ITEM NO. COPIES DESCRIPTION COPIES UNIT PRICE 10000.00 Copying Facilities Mgt.Billing for June 23913 23913 Copies Copies Overage 0.04 1 1 TAX Tax on CCM Material 106.39 1 1 Copies Off Site Services 349.36 1 1 TONER 90 TONER 174.25 9 9 STOCK 8 1/2 x 11 White Paper 2.85 SALE AMOUNT 11612.17 MISC. CHARGES 6.500% SALES TAX 35.70 FREIGHT TOTAL 11647.87 For all the invoices generated under the 1996 Contract, CCC taxed Macfarlane in accordance with its understanding of the formula devised and recommended by Ms. Sanchez. Based on application of this formula, Macfarlane was charged and remitted only sales tax for the consumable goods portion of the contract. During the audit period which is the subject of this proceeding, February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998, the sales tax was either 6.5 percent or 7 percent, whichever was in effect at the time of the invoice. The sales tax listed on the invoices do not reflect tax on the total amount of the invoice. A multiplication of the total amount by either 6.5 or 7 percent reveals that the amount of sales taxes paid by Macfarlane for the audit period in question, February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998, was only on a small portion of the total invoice billing. The 1993 Contract and the 1996 Contract between Macfarlane and CCC do not address, contain language, or speak directly to any "facilities management services." Neither do the contracts define the terms "service," "related services," or "other related services." Although the terms listed in paragraph 22 above are not defined in the 1993 Contract and the 1996 Contract, Mr. Cayo, the regional operations manager of Lanier Professional Services (LPS), formerly CCC, testified that other services included facilities management services. According to Mr. Cayo, "facilities management" at Macfarlane included making deliveries and rounds, key-oping equipment, filing, supporting, and cleaning and setting up conference rooms. Diane Garner, an employee of CCC, was assigned to work at Macfarlane during the time of the audit period which is the subject of this proceeding. Ms. Garner testified that facilities management services or other services provided by CCC included providing coffee service, sorting mail, sending and delivering faxes, sending and delivering Federal Express packages, moving boxes, ordering and delivering office supplies, and making interoffice mail runs. If the above-described facilities management services were provided, none of the invoices sent by CCC to Macfarlane separately listed any charges to Macfarlane for those services. Moreover, CCC did not separately list on its invoices to Macfarlane a charge for "mail delivery," "filing," "charge-back accounting," or "clerical services," or any other such services. If these services were deemed "related services," the provisions of the 1996 Contract quoted in paragraph 16 required that a description of such services be provided on the invoice or summary report. No description of the foregoing services appears on any of the invoices prepared by CCC and issued to Macfarlane. No other contracts existed between CCC and Macfarlane during the audit periods which reflect that the services described in paragraphs 23 and 24 above would be offered or provided by CCC to Macfarlane. The Department audited Macfarlane in 1999. The audit was conducted by Darlene Bebbington, an auditor with the Department. During this audit, contrary to the position of Ms. Sanchez during the aforementioned audit of CCC, the Department stated that Macfarlane was required to pay tax on the full amount of the invoices. This conclusion was reached by Ms. Bebbington based on the information contained on each invoice. The invoices did not itemize or otherwise separately list or detail products, materials, and/or services that were exempt from tax. To address issues raised by Ms. Bebbington during the audit, Macfarlane sought information from CCC regarding the sales tax amounts that were listed on the invoices. In response, CCC provided two letters to Macfarlane, one dated April 29, 1999, and the second one dated September 22, 1999. In the April 29, 1999, letter to Macfarlane, Mr. Cayo explained how the company handled the sales tax issue for Facilities Management customers and the rationale for doing so. Mr. Cayo stated that during the Department's audit of CCC, Ms. Sanchez indicated that "Facilities Management" was a service and it "was not subject to be taxed." In the letter, Mr. Cayo also stated that all equipment and material used in the performance of these services needed to be taxed, but not the total "Facilities Management" charge. The September 22, 1999, letter was from Andrew Schutte, Finance Manager of LPS, formerly CCC, to Macfarlane and was in response to a specific inquiry from Macfarlane. In that letter, Mr. Schutte stated that the two full-time CCC employees working at the Macfarlane office assigned 87 percent of their collective time performing various facilities management services and spent approximately 13 percent of their collective time making photocopies. However, the letter did not indicate how Mr. Schutte arrived at the quoted percentages or the time period for which those percentages applied. Based on CCC's claim that the formula devised by Ms. Sanchez was used to calculate the amount of sales tax it should charge Macfarlane, Ms. Bebbington pulled CCC's audit file from the Department's records. The Department contends that any agreement to use a formula such as the one described in paragraph 10, should have, by Department policy, been in writing, signed by the auditor and the supervisors, and placed in the audit file. However, upon a review of the Department's records, no such written agreement or documentation was in the CCC audit file. In light of the Department's admission noted in paragraph 13 above, Ms. Sanchez devised a formula which was shared with CCC, but she apparently did not include this formula or her discussions with CCC in the audit file. After Ms. Bebbington completed the audit of Macfarlane and based on the results thereof, the Department notified Macfarlane that it intended to impose additional sales and use tax, interest, and penalties. After the audit report was issued Macfarlane objected to the findings and requested that the Department reconsider the assessment. On or about April 10, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration ("Notice") based on Macfarlane's protest of the Department's audit findings for the period of February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998. The Notice showed that Macfarlane owed additional sales and use tax of $35,958.27, a penalty of $17,979.37, and interest through April 6, 2000, of $16,701.32, and additional interest through April 12, 2000, of $3,606.12. The notice also indicated that interest would continue to accrue at $9.72 per day from April 12, 2001. According to the Notice, Macfarlane made a payment of $6,407.65 to the Department on April 6, 2000, leaving an unpaid balance of $67,837.43. Macfarlane asserts that it should not have to pay sales and use tax on the full amount of the invoice because a portion of that amount is for services that are exempt from sales and use tax. Contrary to this assertion, the auditor found that the invoices and other documentary evidence provided to the Department did not provide substantial competent evidence that any portion of the invoice amounts were attributable to products, materials, or services that were exempt from tax. Accordingly, based on the information provided by Macfarlane, the Department properly concluded that the total amount of each invoice was subject to sales and use tax. Because there is no substantial competent written documentation evidencing what tax exempt services were performed by CCC for Macfarlane and what specified portion of the monthly costs invoiced to Macfarlane were for those "claimed" tax exempt services, Macfarlane is liable for the entire amount on the invoices for the audit period. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Macfarlane did not timely pay the total amount of the invoices, including the amount attributable by CCC to sales and use tax. But for CCC's changing the manner in which it calculated the sales and use tax for its customers in early 1994, Macfarlane would have continued paying the tax on all goods and services as it did prior to January 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered sustaining the assessment for sales and use tax against Petitioner, but compromising the entire interest and penalty amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 6th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James W. Goodwin, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33602 Bruce Hoffman, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jarrell L. Murchison, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Eric J. Taylor, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David Adams, Esquire Charles Moore, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact During the three year period from October 1, 1974 through September 30, 1977 Air Jamaica purchased prepared meals from Jerry's Caterers at Miami (Jerry's) in the total amount of $740,760.04 and Taca purchased prepared meals from Jerry's in the total amount of $161,379.72. Sales tax, penalty and interest through March 20, 1978 were assessed against Air Jamaica in the amount of $35,291.54 on the total paid for meals from Jerry's. Sales tax plus interest through November 20, 1977 were assessed against Taca in the amount of $9,359.86 on the total paid for meals from Jerry's. These figures are accepted as accurately representing 4 percent of the cost of meals purchased plus interest and penalties. The operations with respect to the meals were identical for both Air Jamaica and Taca. Prepared meals were delivered to the aircraft by Jerry's in trays holding 25 meals. These trays are supplied with heating elements and act as ovens in which the meals are heated. When placed aboard the aircraft by Jerry's' employees the trays holding meals intended to be served hot are plugged into electrical outlets on the plane. Prepared food delivered to the aircraft by Jerry's intended to be served cold obviously are not plugged into the electrical outlets. Air Jamaica departs from Miami and serves only Montego Bay and Jamaica. Taca departs from Miami and serves the cities of Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Panama. Some 30 to 50 minutes after leaving Miami each company serves a meal for which no separate charge is made to the passenger. At the time these meals are served the aircraft is well outside the boundaries of Florida and either over Cuba or international waters. Although no separate charge is made for the meal served the cost of the meal, like every other operational and administrative cost, is considered in arriving at the air fare charged to the passenger for the transportation from Miami to destination. Jerry's bills the airlines for the number of meals delivered at a wholesale price of $3.48 per meal for meals served to first class passengers and $2.19 for meals served to economy passengers. Each airline provided Jerry's with tax resale certificates which relieved Jerry's from the collection of sales tax on meals delivered to the aircraft.
The Issue The issue presented is what is Peaches' basis in the Sterling stock?
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the material facts in the instant case, Exhibit 1 presented at the hearing is a composite exhibit which is comprised of the Petitioner's U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return and Florida Corporate Income Tax Return for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. Exhibit 3 is the Respondent's document entitled "Income Tax Audit Changes" which reflects the adjustments made by the Respondent based upon a review of the Petitioner's return and the reasons for assessing the deficiency. Exhibit 2 is a composite exhibit comprised of the Petitioner's Amended Protest of the proposed deficiency and the Respondent's letter denying the same. Petitioner's federal return (Exhibit 1) Schedule D, Part II, reflects the 31,500 shares were acquired in 1958 at a cost basis of $10,191.00. These shares were subsequently sold by Peaches in 1972 for $1,160,131.00 or a gain of $1,149,940.00. This gain was reported on line 9(a) of the federal tax return as a portion of the "net capital gains." On its 1973 Florida Corporate Income Tax Return, Petitioner computed the income using the basis for the stock as of January 2, 1972, thereby reducing its reported income by $1,013,040.00 from the federal tax. The $1,013,040.00 reflects the amount of appreciation in the value of the stock between the transferrer's acquisition and January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1971 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's petition be denied and that the assessment against the Petitioner in the amount of $29,435.00 together with interest be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire Trinkle and Redman, P.A. 306 West Reynolds Street Plant City, Florida 33566 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA PEACHES OF FLORIDA, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1433 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. / NOTICE TO: JAMES S. MOODY, JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER TRINKLE AND REDMAN, P. A. 306 WEST REYNOLDS STREET PLANT CITY, FLORIDA 33566 E. WILSON CRUMP, II, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 5557 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 You will please take notice that the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida, acting as head of the Department of Revenue, at its meeting on the 5th day of April, 1979, approved the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer dated January 22, 1979, with paragraph 3 of the "Findings of Fact" therein amended to read as follows: "The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1972 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation", in accordance with Stipulation of the Petitioner and Respondent filed in the case on March 1, 1979. This constitutes final agency action by the Department of Revenue. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF FLORIDA ROOM 104, CARLTON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was furnished by mail to James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire, Trinkle and Redman, P. A., 306 West Reynolds Street, Plant City, Florida 33566, Attorney for Petitioner; by hand delivery to Wilson Crump, II, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Post Office fox 5557, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, Attorney for Respondent and Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings; Room 530, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of April, 1979. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On September 15, 1960, Earman Oil Company, Inc., was granted License Number 1748 (the "Special Fuels Dealer's License") authorizing it to operate as a User-Dealer of special fuels in the State of Florida. On the face of that License was the following notation: This license is NOT TRANSFERRABLE but will continue in full force and effect until cancelled or revoked as provided by law. The Special Fuels Dealer's License also contained a notation that provided as follows: This license must be returned to RAY F. GREEN, Comptroller, when a licensee terminates his operation as a User-Dealer. On April 1, 1967, Earman Oil Company, Inc., was issued State License Number 375 (the "Motor Fuels Distributor's License") by the Florida Revenue Commission, authorizing Earman to engage in the business of distributing motor fuels in the State of Florida. On the face of that License was the following notation: This license is not transferrable or assignable, and must be displayed conspicuously at all times at the Distributor's office or principle place of business. A Special Fuels Dealer's License and a Motor Fuels Distributor's License entitle a holder to purchase diesel fuel and gasoline for distribution without paying local option taxes pursuant to Chapter 336, Florida Statutes, motor fuel retail sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Part II, Florida Statutes and motor fuels tax pursuant to Chapter 206, Part I, Florida Statutes. A holder of such licenses is obligated to collect the taxes upon resale to customers and to remit those taxes to the state. If the resale is to another distributor who holds a valid license, the sale can be made tax free provided the seller follows the procedures set forth in the statutes and applicable DOR rules. In order to obtain either of the licenses during all times pertinent to this case, a company was required to have been in operation for at least one year and had to meet certain other requirements, including the posting of a bond. Sometime in 1983, Barkett, a licensed dealer of special and motor fuels in the state of Florida, purchased Florida Coast Oil Company, Inc. ("Florida Coast"), another licensed dealer of special and motor fuels in the State of Florida. The evidence did not establish the specific terms and details of that acquisition. The licenses held by Florida Coast which enabled it to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis were not cancelled or revoked following Barkett's acquisition of the company. Barkett apparently acquired all of the stock of Florida Coast and Florida Coast continued in operation under that same name. Many, if not all, of the officers and directors of Barkett at this time also became officers and directors in Florida Coast. The evidence was conflicting and confusing as to the status of Earman Oil during 1980-1984. After review of all the evidence, it is concluded that Florida Coast acquired Earman Oil Company in 1980. The evidence did not establish the specific terms and details of that transaction. Apparently, this acquisition was also a stock purchase arrangement and Earman Oil Company initially remained in existence following its acquistion by Florida Coast. However, on August 31, 1981, Earman Oil Company was officially merged into Florida Coast. Harry Barkett, the president of Barkett and Florida Coast (after its acquisition by Barkett in 1983,) testified that the Department was advised of Florida Coast's acquisition of Earman Oil Company and Florida Coast was told by DOR that it could continue to use the licenses issued to Earman Oil Company in order to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis. However, it does not appear that Mr. Barkett had any interest in Florida Coast at the time of the acquisition of Earman and no explanation was provided as to how he learned of DOR's alleged approval of the continued use of Earman's licenses. This contention is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 24 below. On September 10, 1984, Florida Coast sold certain assets to Alfred Vittorino. Vittorino had previously worked as a manager for Barkett. The sales agreement provided that the assets being sold included ll rights to operate as Earman Oil Company including but not limited to all rights to the stock, licenses, permits or trademarks that are titled to Earman Oil Company that are required to operate the business. The parties have stipulated that on September 12, 1984, a Certificate of Incorporation for a new Earman Oil Company, Inc., was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State for Florida and that Alfred Vittorino was the president and sole stock holder for that company. The licenses issued to the original Earman Oil Company could not legally be transferred or assigned to the new company. Moreover, the new company could not qualify for new licenses on its own since it had not been in operation for at least one year. There is no dispute that at the time Vittorino acquired the assets from Florida Coast and began operating under the name Earman Oil Company, the Special Fuel Dealer's License and the Motor Fuel Distributor's License previously issued in the name of Earman Oil Company were delivered to Vittorino by Florida Coast. Harry Barkett, who was the president of both Barkett and Florida Coast at the time of the sale to Vittorino, testified that Vittorino told him that he would take whatever steps were necessary to get the licenses reissued and/or obtain new licenses so that Earman could continue to purchase fuel on a tax exempt basis. Earman Oil Company never applied for new licenses after its acquisition by Vittorino. Instead, the company merely obtained and used the old licenses. Since the Special Fuel Dealer's License and the Motor Fuel Distributor's Licenses issued to the original Earman Oil Company has never been cancelled, "Earman Oil Company" was still registered with DOR as a distributor of motor fuel and a dealer of special fuels and it remained registered during the entire period in question, September 1984 to April 1985. Although Harry Barkett testified that he believes DOR was notified of Florida Coast's sale of Earman's assets to Vittorino, DOR has no record of the sale and/or the transfer of the licenses of Earman Oil Company to Vittorino. No persuasive evidence was presented to establish that DOR was fully advised as to the terms of the sale and the status of the companies at the time of the sale. The contention that DOR approved the transfer of the licenses to the new company established by Vittorino is rejected. After Vittorino purchased the above described assets from Florida Coast, Earman Oil Company began engaging in the business of selling motor fuel and special fuels to its customers. During the period from September 1984 through April 1985, Earman Oil Company purchased gasoline and diesel fuel from Barkett and other companies and sold that fuel to, among others, Miami Petroleum Oil Company, Inc., an unlicensed distributor of gasoline and diesel fuel. During that period, the invoices for the sales by Barkett to Earman Oil Company indicated that the sales were tax exempt and there is no indication that taxes were being collected from Earman. Barkett did not obtain an affidavit or "resale" certificate from Earman Oil Co. prior to selling tax exempt. However, Barkett filed tax returns with DOR indicating that the sales were tax exempt. Barkett contends that its typical procedure for selling tax exempt to a customer is to obtain the customer's license number and verbally confirm the validity of that number with the Department. Petitioner contends that it followed this procedure prior to selling tax exempt to Earman Oil Company and that the Department confirmed that the license numbers provided by Earman Oil Company were valid. While Petitioner contends that it contacted the Respondent in order to verify that Earman Oil Company was in possession of a valid license, there is no written evidence of any such communication. The applicable statutes and regulations require a distributor to obtain an affidavit or a "resale certificate" in order to sell fuel tax exempt. There is no provision in the rules or the statutes for verbal confirmation of licensure status. From September 1984 through April 1985, Earman Oil collected motor fuel taxes under Chapters 206 and 212, Florida Statutes, from its customers, but never remitted those taxes to the state. There is no evidence that any of the taxes collected by Earman Oil were transferred to Barkett. Earman Oil Company filed tax returns with DOR indicating that it had not collected any taxes. Criminal charges were subsequently brought against Vittorino for failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes for the period September 1984 through April 1985. Vittorino was found guilty by a jury of failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes and was initially sentenced to nine years in prison, which was subsequently reduced to six years on appeal. As of the date of the hearing in this administrative proceeding, the state has not collected any of the outstanding taxes from Vittorino or Earman Oil. Petitioner contends that during the trial of Vittorino, the State of Florida maintained that Earman Oil Company held valid licenses as a distributor of motor fuel and as a dealer of special fuels during the period September 1984 through May 1985. The transcript of that criminal proceeding confirms that this was one theory advanced by the prosecution during that case. However, there was considerable confusion during that trial as to the licensure status of Earman. Ultimately, Vittorino was convicted of failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes. It was not an essential element of this offense for Earman to be a valid license holder. DOR conducted an audit of Barkett (Audit Number 86-17412886) for the period September 1984 through April 1985. The Department's audit indicated that Barkett sold 9,548,414 gallons of motor fuel on a tax free basis to Earman Oil Company during the period from September 1, 1984 through April 30, 1985. During the audit, the auditor requested Barkett to provide resale certificates or affidavits from Earman Oil Company to substantiate the basis for the tax exempt sales. Barkett was unable to produce any such resale certificates or affidavits. As a result, DOR concluded that Barkett was responsible for collecting and remitting to the state taxes on all the sales made during this period by Barkett to Earman. Barkett contested the results of the audit and the Department's Notice of Decision issued on August 4, 1988. Barkett timely petitioned for reconsideration of that decision on September 2, 1988. The Department issued its Notice of Reconsideration on January 19, 1989. In its Notice of Reconsideration, the Department determined that the balance due for the Local Option Tax pursuant to Chapter 336, Florida Statutes, was $540,173.68, which consisted of $381,936.56 tax, $95,484.14 penalty and $62,752.98 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $125.50 per day from June 6, 1986, until date of payment.) The Department also determined that the balance due for motor fuel retail sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Part II, Florida Statutes, was $769,747.50, which consisted of $544,259.60 tax, $136,064.90 penalty and $89,423.00 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $178.93 per day from June 6, 1988 until date of payment.) Finally, the Department determined that the balance due for motor fuels tax pursuant to Chapter 206, Part I, Florida Statutes, was $540,173.68, which consisted of $381,936.56 tax, $95,484.14 penalty, and $62,752.98 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $125.57 per day from June 6, 1986 until date of payment.) 1/ As part of its reconsideration, the Department deleted the fraud penalties that had previously been assessed against Barkett. Barkett timely filed a challenge to the Department's conclusions in the Notice of Reconsideration. 2/ During the late 70's and early 1980's, Barkett Oil acquired a number of different oil companies (including Florida Coast, which had previously acquired Earman). Several of the companies that were acquired by Barkett held licenses from the Department that enabled them to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis for resale. Barkett contends that it notified the Department of each of those acquisitions and was never instructed that it had to reapply for a license to purchase tax exempt. Barkett suggests that these prior experiences justified its conclusion that Earman Oil Company could continue to purchase tax exempt following the sale and transfer of licenses to Vittorino. However, the circumstances and terms of the prior acquisitions by Barkett were not established in this case. It is not clear whether those transactions were stock purchase agreements or simply the acquisition of assets. Furthermore, the evidence regarding the notification supposedly given to the Department was vague and unconvincing. Although Petitioner contends that it notified the Department that Earman Oil Company had been sold to Vittorino, there is no written evidence of any such communication. It is not clear who at the Department was notified of the sale nor is it clear what information was provided regarding the sale. In sum, Petitioner's contention that Respondent should be estopped from claiming that Earman Oil Company did not hold a valid Distributor's License and/or Special Fuel License is rejected. There was insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that an authorized representative of the Department who was provided with full disclosure of the facts surrounding the transfer to Vittorino advised Petitioner that it could sell tax exempt to Earman Oil Company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered upholding the assessments set forth in the Notice of Reconsideration. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact FMCC is a corporation organized and existing under Delaware law. FMCC maintains its principal place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. FMCC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company. FMCC qualified and is authorized to do business in the State of Florida pursuant to the foreign corporation provisions of Chapter 607, Florida Statutes, and has continuously maintained a registered office and agent in this state during the audit years at issue. During the tax years 1980-1982, inclusive, FMCC and Ford filed corporate tax returns in Florida and paid the taxes due thereon under the Florida Income Tax Code; FMCC maintained 7 to 8 branch offices and employed approximately 200 people in Florida; and Ford had contractual relationships with approximately 130 to 150 authorized Ford dealers in Florida. A copy of a representative agreement between Ford and the dealers is Exhibit 3 to this Stipulation. FMCC's principal business is financing the wholesale and retail sales of vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company. During the audit period FMCC provided financing for the purchase of vehicles as authorized by Ford dealers from Ford Motor Company. FMCC also: provided financing for the purchase of automobiles by the public from the dealers; and engaged in commercial, industrial and real estate financing, consumer loan financing, and leasing company financing in the State of Florida as well as other states. Attached as Composite Exhibit 4 are sample documents utilized by FMCC in the above financing. The majority of the intangibles in question are accounts receivables held by FMCC and owned by Florida debtors in connection with the purchase of tangible personal property shipped to or located in the State of Florida. FMCC is the holder of security agreements executed by thousands of Florida debtors. These security agreements gave FMCC a lien on tangible personal property located in the State of Florida. The Florida Secretary of State's Office was utilized by FMCC during the assessment period to perfect and protect its liens created under these security agreements with Florida debtors by the filing of U.C.C. financing statements. None of the original notes are stored in Florida. During the assessment period, FMCC utilized or could have utilized the Florida Courts to recover sums due by Florida debtors on delinquent accounts receivable. In addition, FMCC utilizes the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to perfect its liens on motor vehicles pursuant to Chapter 319, Florida Statutes. In 1983, the Department conducted an audit of the FMCC intangible tax returns for tax years 1980 through 1982, inclusive. On June 3, 1983, the Department proposed an assessment of tax, penalty and interest in the total amount of $2,560,379.00. See Exhibit 5. FMCC filed a timely protest. On October 8, 1984, the Department issued a Notice of Decision. See Exhibit 2. On December 12, 1984, the Department acknowledged receipt of FMCC's timely November 8, 1984 Petition for Reconsideration. On February 18, 1985, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration. See Exhibit 6. FMCC elected to file a Petition for Formal Proceedings, which was received on April 8, 1985. On the basis of the revised audit report, the Department of Revenue imposed the intangible tax on FMCC for the tax years 1980 through 1982, inclusive, in the following categories, and in the taxable amounts listed as follows: 1/1/80 1/1/81 1/1/82 Commercial Finance Receivables-- $342,892,615 $403,061,571 $486,412,164 Retail Commercial Finance Receivables-- 218,591,180 241,993,462 228,303,569 Wholesale Simple Interest Lease Receivables-- 66,345,902 75,978,095 71,315,777 Retail Lease Finance Receivables N/A N/A N/A Capital Loan Receivables 3,112,877 2,064,698 2,419,770 Consumer Loan Receivables 10,144,531 14,122,666 18,578,699 Service Equipment Financing--Dealer I.D. 481,869 368,186 422,108 Receivables Ford Rent-A-Car Receivables 27,825,283 26,179,377 20,362,896 Ford Parts & Service Receivables -0- 10,499,401 10,800,313 (10) Accounts Receivables--Customers & Others 3,452,194 4,581,629 4,952,234 (11) Accounts Receivables--Affiliate 1,617,880 2,914,094 4,438,849 (12) C.I.R. Receivables 23,243,257 27,387,938 24,222,621 TOTAL FLORIDA RECEIVABLES------ 697,707,588 809,151,117 872,229,000 TAX AT 1 MILL---- 697,708 809,151 872,229 LESS ORIGINAL TAX PAYMENT------ 312,703 351,976 339,142 LESS PETITION PAYMENT ON AGREED CATEGORIES------ 51,069 53,567 44,586 TOTAL REMAINING TAX ASSESSED------ $333,936 $403,608 $488,501 TOTAL TAX FOR ALL YEARS----- $1,226,045 REVISED ASSESSMENT FIGURES DOES NOT INCLUDE $1,386.18 OF THE PETITION PAYMENT At the time it filed its petition for a formal hearing, FMCC agreed to and paid the 1 mill tax, but no interest or penalty, on the following amounts. The taxability of these items is no longer in dispute, only penalty and interest. 1980 1981 1982 (8) Ford Rent-A-Car 27,825,283 26,179,377 20,362,896 Receivables (12) CIR 23,243,257 27,387,938 24,222,621 Receivables Capital Loan Receivables (item 5 of paragraph 11) reflect amounts of money owed by Ford dealers to FMCC. The obligation arises from loans made to Ford dealers located in Florida to expand showroom or other facilities and for working capital. The items located as (10) Accounts Receivable - Customers and Others and (11) Accounts Receivables - Affiliates in paragraph 11 reflect only the amount of accrued interest to which FMCC is entitled on notes from non-affiliates and affiliates, respectively, from the last settlement date prior to year end until the end of each respective year. The principal amounts owed on these notes, which are not secured by realty, are included in other categories. The Department does not assess a tax for similar interest when the amount owed is secured by realty. Wholesale and retail intangibles were created and handled in 1980, 1981 and 1982 by FMCC in the manner set forth in Exhibit 7. The Department of Revenue has imposed penalties in the amount of $543,968 composed of $330,051 as the 25% delinquent penalty imposed pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 199.052(9)(a) (1983), and $15,886 as the 15% undervalued Property penalty imposed pursuant to Section 199.052(9)(d)(1983), Florida Statutes. The Department offered abatement of the 15% omission penalty ($198,031) imposed pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 199.052(9)(c) (1983). The closing agreement required pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 213.21 reflecting this reduction of penalty was not signed by petitioner. FMCC's intangible tax returns have been audited on prior occasions. The manner of reporting was identical to the manner in which FMCC reported its intangibles for tax years 1980 through 1982. The 1973-1975 and the 1976-1978 audits were "no change" audits. FMCC's method of reporting receivables generated from Florida sales was challenged by the Department of Revenue. The challenge was dropped because the Department of Revenue did not have the statutory authority to assess sales of tangible personal property with an f.o.b. point other than Florida. Chapter 77-43, Laws of Florida amended Section 199.112, Fla. Stat. to allow tangible personal property (sic) [to be taxed] regardless of the f.o.b. point of sale. This amendment applied to the January 1, 1978 taxable year. There was a 1978-1980 "no change" audit. Ford Motor Company has filed refund claims for certain categories for the tax year 1981 and 1982. Ford Motor Company claims that it inadvertently paid intangible tax on accounts receivable owned by FMCC. As presented in the Notice of Decision, no refund will be made as it will be handled as a credit against taxes due by Ford Motor Company. While not an announced policy, the Department of Revenue drafted and utilized proposed rules relating to compromising penalties. These rules are not final. Attached as Exhibit 8 are the proposed rules. A copy of these rules was provided to Petitioner by letter dated July 28, 1986. In addition, while not an announced policy the Department of Revenue utilized guidelines established by the Internal Revenue Service and federal court for compromising penalties.
