The Issue Whether the "Additional Payment" made by Hernando HMA, Inc., d/b/a Brooksville Regional Hospital to Hernando County pursuant to a document entitled Lease Agreement, as amended, constitutes "rent" subject to sales tax under section 212.031, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Hernando HMA, Inc. (HMA) is a for-profit entity which operates Brooksville Regional Hospital, Spring Hill Regional Hospital, and other entities, as successor to an entity that was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings from 1993 to 1998, Regional Healthcare, Inc. (RHI). The Department is an agency of the State of Florida that has been delegated the responsibility to collect sales and use taxes imposed by chapter 212, Florida Statutes. In 1998, as part of RHI's bankruptcy plan, HMA and the County entered into various agreements, including a lease agreement (1998 Lease), regarding the use and operation of several RHI hospital properties and improvements owned by the County, and leased back to RHI. Under the 1998 Lease and other agreements, HMA agreed to continue to operate the hospital facilities for 30 years with possession of the real property and improvements to be returned to the County at the end of the lease term. Section 1.2W. of the 1998 Lease defined "Rental Payment" as follows: "Rental Payment" means all payments due from Lessee to Lessor or otherwise required to be paid by Lessee pursuant to the terms of this lease. The 1998 Lease further provided in section 3.3 under the heading "Rent": The annual rental payment of the Leased Premises for each year of the Lease Term (the "Rental Payment") shall be in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000). This Rental Payment shall be paid to Lessor by Lessee on the Commencement Date and on each anniversary date of the Commencement Date during the Lease Term. The 1998 Lease also provided that HMA, as Lessee, would pay "all taxes, if any, prior to delinquency." Under the 1998 Lease, the County agreed to lease the premises in consideration of HMA’s timely payment of rent and timely performance of the other covenants and agreements required under the lease. It was an “event of default” under the lease if HMA failed to observe and perform any covenant, condition, or agreement on its part which could be cured by a payment of money. Remedies for default under the 1998 Lease included termination of the lease by the County and exclusion of HMA from possession of the leased premises. Even though the leased premises under the 1998 Lease were not subject to ad valorem taxes because they were owned by the County, during public discussions of the proposed 1998 Lease, an issue arose about HMA's responsibility for payment of fire assessments that would have been paid if the property was not immune or exempt from ad valorem taxes. HMA agreed, by separate agreement, to pay the fire assessments and buy a new ambulance to serve the community. The fire assessment agreement was by separate document that was included as part of the closing of the 1998 Lease and other agreements involving the hospital facilities in June 1998. The 1998 Lease was dated June 1, 1998. The 1998 Lease terms included a merger clause in section 15.6 entitled “ENTIRE AGREEMENT,” which provided: This lease may not be modified, amended or otherwise changed orally, but may only be modified, amended or otherwise changed by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. This Lease Agreement and its accompanying guaranty constitute the entire agreement between the parties affecting this Lease. This Lease Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements, and understandings between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter thereof, and no such outside or prior agreements shall be used to interpret or to construe this Lease. There are no promises, covenants, representations or inducements in addition to, or at variance with any of the terms of this Lease Agreement except the Guaranty. In 2001, the County and HMA began negotiations for relocation of the Brooksville Regional Hospital which was part of the leased premises described in the 1998 Lease. During the negotiations, HMA, through its attorney, Steven Mitchell, prepared a proposed comprehensive relocation agreement in consultation with former County Attorney Bruce Snow. Section 7.3 of the proposed relocation agreement contemplated revising the 1998 Lease and suggested the following preliminarily negotiated language for rental payments under a revised 1998 Lease: Rental Payments The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on the due date therefore as set forth in the Lease Agreement, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) per annum. The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on an annual basis, either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of the same sum to be used by Hernando County as it deems appropriate, an amount equal to the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid on the New Facility Site as improved with the New Facility if the New Facility Site were not owned by Hernando County but owned by a for-profit entity. In the event the New Facility Site and the New Facility located thereon are subsequently required by law to pay ad valorem taxes then the obligation to pay the amount described in Section 7.3(b) herein shall immediately terminate and Lessee shall be responsible for the payment of the appropriate ad valorem tax. The proposed comprehensive relocation agreement was discussed at public meetings held by the Hernando County Board of Commissioners on September 17 and September 25, 2001. The minutes of the September 25, 2001, meeting indicate that the County Administrator advised that the proposed relocation agreement contemplated that HMA would continue to pay $300,000 annually as rent, and “would make a payment-in-lieu of taxes annually to the County . . . .” The minutes also reflect that, in responding to a question from a commissioner regarding whether there should be language in the agreement that would protect the “payment-in-lieu of taxes” provision in the event the law changed: [Former County Attorney] Snow replied that it was his recommendation that there should be a provision that to the extent that the organic law of the State provided that facilities, such as the new hospital or other hospital under the lease, were taxable for ad valorem tax purposes, that that provision of the organic law would apply to ensure that that provision superseded. He explained that the lease provision to provide for an ad valorem tax payment was only to the extent that the organic law did not otherwise compel it so that the County would be receiving ad valorem tax under either scenario. The minutes from the September 25, 2001, meeting further state: Mr. Snow replied to County Attorney Garth Coller that there had been recent Supreme Court decisions which may have a bearing on the organic law to the extent that a decision of that nature indicated that the facilities were subject to ad valorem tax, notwithstanding the ownership issue, then they were subject to ad valorem tax and the lease would need to clarify that. He suggested that if the FS or Constitution should change, even in the absence of an interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, the change would obligate the payment of ad valorem taxes pursuant to the constitutional or statutory provisions. He explained that organic law pertained to provisions of FS or the Constitution as opposed to a Court decision. Mr. Snow’s reported reference to recent “Supreme Court decisions” regarding ad valorem taxes undoubtedly was referring the decision, among others, in Sebring Airport Authority v. McIntyre, 718 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1998). In that decision, rendered a few months after the County entered into the 1998 Lease, the Supreme Court of Florida stated with regard to municipal (as opposed to county) property: [T]here is nothing in article VII, section 3 that allows the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation municipally owned property or any other property that is being used primarily for a proprietary purpose or for any purpose other than a governmental, municipal or public purpose. To the extent section 196.012(6) attempts to exempt from taxation municipal property used for a proprietary purpose, the statute is unconstitutional. Id. at 298. The Sebring case did not address tax immunity of county property as distinguished from the issue of tax exemptions for the proprietary use of municipal property. The proposed “Rental Payments” language for revisions to the 1998 Lease, however, demonstrates that the drafters of the comprehensive relocation agreement were aware of the possibility that the Sebring rationale could be expanded and applied to county property. The comprehensive relocation agreement was approved by the County, and executed in late 2001. Attached as to that relocation agreement as Schedule C was an unsigned document entitled “First Amendment to Lease Agreement” that was not to be executed until the new facility was completed and transferred to the County. Subsection 3.3 of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement entitled “Rental Payments” provided: Rental Payments The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor on the due date therefore as set forth in the Lease Agreement, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) per annum. The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor on an annual basis, either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of an amount (“Additional Payment”) equal to the sum of the following: An amount equal to that portion of the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid to Hernando County on the Leased Premises (as modified by the substitution of the New Facility Site for the Current Hospital Site) if the Leased Premises were not owned by Hernando County but owned by a for profit entity; and An amount equal to that portion of the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid to the Spring Hill Fire and Rescue District, the Township 22 Fire District and/or any other special taxing district that may be established pursuant to law; and An amount equal to all special assessments levied by Hernando County through any Municipal Service Benefit Unit created by Hernando County pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01, Florida Statutes; and An amount equal to all ad valorem tax levied by Hernando County through any Municipal Service Taxing Unit created by Hernando County pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. In no event shall the Additional Payments exceed an amount equal to a full ad valorem tax assessment on the New Facility Site as determined annually by the Hernando County Property Appraiser. In the event the Lessee and/or Lessor is required by law to pay ad valorem taxes on the Leased Premises or any portion thereof, the obligation to pay to Lessor the Additional Payment described in this Section 3.3 shall immediately terminate (and/or be adjusted, whichever is applicable), and Lessee shall be responsible for payment of the appropriate ad valorem tax. The First Amendment to Lease Agreement further provided, “[e]xcept as expressly modified herein, all other terms and conditions set forth in the [1998] Lease Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.” The new hospital facility was completed and transferred to the County in 2005. On November 15, 2005, the County commission approved documents related to the transfer, including the First Amendment to Lease Agreement in the precise form as attached to the relocation agreement approved in 2001. The approval was obtained on a consent agenda, and the minutes reflect no further discussion by the commission or the public on the documents that were approved. In 2009, the Hernando County School District sued the County Property Appraiser, alleging that the properties subject to the 1998 Lease as amended by the First Amendment to Lease Agreement should not be exempt from ad valorem taxation. In a 13-page Order dismissing the School District’s action, Circuit Judge Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., distinguished the cases disallowing statutory ad valorem tax exemptions for properties owned by special tax districts or cities from the sovereign immunity against ad valorem taxes enjoyed by real estate owned by the State of Florida and its counties. In his ruling, Judge Merritt noted that Florida law specifically makes leasehold interests in governmental property subject to taxation, noting: The Legislature defines leasehold interests as intangible personal property and, hence, assessed by the Florida Department of Revenue, when: (1) rent is due; (2) the property is used for commercial purposes; (3) is not used for agriculture; (4) not financed with revenue bonds, and; (5) the lease is for an initial term of less than 100 years; §§196.199(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), 199.023(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), specifically preserved in Chapter 2006-312, Laws of Florida (2006). However, see below for further analysis with regard to presumed ownership of property leased for 100 years or more as set forth in §196.199(7), Florida Statutes. Judge Merritt also discussed those instances where “leased” property might not qualify as State or county property where lessees are the “equitable owners,” such as leaseholds of 100 years or more or where properties do not revert to the State until the end of a lease term. In his order, however, Judge Merritt noted that the tax immunity of the County was a fundamental attribute of county property and held that “under the terms of the Lease Agreements the Court concludes that HMA has merely the right to use and possession and is not the beneficial owner as a matter of law Hernando County’s immune property and improvements.” Judge Merritt’s Order was affirmed on appeal. School Board of Hernando County v. Mazourek, Case No. H-27-CA-2009-549 (5th Cir. 2009), per curiam aff’d, 2010 WL 4323055 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) In December, 2010, the Department notified the County it had been selected for a tax compliance audit under chapter 212, Florida Statutes, Sales and Use Tax. The audit period was from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009. The County’s personnel were cordial and receptive during the audit process and the Department’s auditor determined that the books and records kept by the County had adequate internal accounting controls in place and sufficient data integrity. Out of the approximately 19 tax registration accounts the County has with the Department, the Department’s auditor found exception with only tax account #12445797, the tax collected and remitted under its lease with HMA. In her record review, the Department’s auditor noticed invoices and worksheets from the County to HMA, titled “Payment in lieu of taxes.” In examining the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement, Section 3.3 “Rental Payments,” the Department’s auditor determined that the County was not collecting sales tax on a portion of the rent received under that section. The monthly tax return filed by the County under account # 12445797 reflected that it was collecting and remitting the sales tax calculated on the $300,000.00 annual rent payment, but was not collecting and remitting sales tax calculated on the additional payments in lieu of taxes. The Department’s auditor determined the additional payments, required under the lease and made as a condition of occupancy, constituted a taxable transaction as additional rent consideration. The amount of the additional payments, made January 2007 and March 2008, as revealed on the County’s “Payment in lieu of taxes worksheets,” was multiplied by 6.5 percent to arrive at the additional tax amount due of $78,710.17. On December 9, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, Form DR 1215, advising the County of its audit findings, which included $78,710.17 in taxes due, $14,526.37 in accrued interest through December 9, 2010, and a $19,677.55 late payment penalty. On December 21, 2010, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment, Form DR 831, showing an assessment of $78,710.17 in tax and $14,707.51 in accrued interest, for a total of $93,417.68 through December 21, 2010, with interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $15.10 per diem. All penalty amounts were waived. At the final hearing, the County argued that the additional payments from HMA under the First Amendment to Lease Agreement were not rent, but rather separate payments to pay for County services. While the actual language used in the First Amendment to Lease Agreement appears to unambiguously indicate that the additional payments were rent, the County offered additional evidence of facts and circumstances beyond the terms of the lease itself in support of its argument that the additional payments were not rent. That evidence was admitted, without objection, and has been considered in determining the intention of the parties to the lease with regard to the additional payments. In addition to evidence that the lease drafters were aware of certain cases decided on the issue of whether the leased premises would be subject to ad valorem taxes, the County offered the testimony of Mr. Mitchell regarding the “Rental Payments” language found in the First Amendment to Lease Agreement. When asked whether there had been much negotiation over the format or wording of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement, Mr. Mitchell recalled: No, there really wasn’t other than, you know, the concept – what this amendment does is what we had agreed to pay rental payment. The rental payment was $300,000. And then, we also had agreed independently just to go ahead and pay the County for certain services that they were providing to us. And then we specified those. Those were independent payments, not part of the rental payment. Mr. Mitchell further testified: [B]asically, this property is free of ad valorem tax. That is why the school board filed their lawsuit because, of course, they were not getting any of the ad valorem taxes. So, the property is free of payment of ad valorem taxes. We’re paying our 300,000. It was very, very clear. However, HMA felt that the County was providing certain services, the fire districts and whatnot. So, independent of the rent, we paid this amount. If you read the section dealing – it’s 3.3.[2], or whatever it is, which I’ll read it to you, it talks about, at the very end – and they did it for whatever reason the property became taxable, you know, it effectively became taxable and we had to pay full ad valorem taxes on the property, then the specialties – these additional payments we called, you know, would go away and they, effectively, be part of rent. That's why it talks about it as such, and it was either additional payment and/or rent. Contrary to Mr. Mitchell’s recollection, section 3.3.2 of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement does not speak in terms of “additional payment and/or rent” but rather states that another payment would be made “either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of an amount ('Additional Payment') . . .". Mr. Mitchell makes a valid point regarding the fact that HMA was concerned about having to pay both the additional payment and ad valorem taxes. Consistent with this concern, the lease amendment made it clear that HMA would not have to pay the additional amount if the property ever became subject to ad valorem taxes. Mr. Mitchell’s testimony in support of the County’s contention that HMA’s payment in lieu of taxes under the First Amendment to Lease Agreement was not rent, however, is unpersuasive. Considering the extrinsic evidence offered by the County, especially evidence of the parties concern that the subject County property might someday be subject to ad valorem taxes, together with the 1998 Lease, language negotiated for the proposed relocation agreement, and the actual terms of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement, it is found that the parties intended the language under the "Rental Payments" section to assure that HMA did not have to pay the additional amount twice. The extrinsic evidence offered by the County, however, was insufficient to support a finding that the parties intended to differentiate between “rent” and the “additional payment” or that, however characterized, the payment in lieu of taxes was not rent subject to assessment by the Department. If the parties had wanted to provide language that designated the payment in lieu of taxes as a payment for services instead of rent they could have, as they did in the Second Amendment to Lease Agreement entered into on September 13, 2011, just ten days prior to the final hearing in this case.2/ That Second Amendment to Lease Agreement changed the name of section 3.3 from “Rental Payments,” as found in the First Amendment, to “Rent and Additional Payment for County Services.” Pertinent subsections of the Second Amendment further provided: 3.3.2 Additional Payment for County Services. The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on an annual basis, as an additional payment (“Additional Payment”) for services provided by Hernando County [in its role as a service provider and local taxing authority], . . . * * * The Additional Payment is not intended to constitute “rent” and is not intended to create an event subject to Florida sales tax – but rather is intended to constitute a separate payment for the provision of services, payable to the local taxing authority, as provided in § 212.031(1)(c), Florida Statutes (which allow parties by contractual arrangement to distinguish between payments which are intended to be taxable and payments which are intended to be nontaxable), as this section may be amended or renumbered from time to time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the Notice of Proposed Assessment dated December 21, 2010, and this Recommended Order, the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes tax and interest due totaling $93,417.68 through December 21, 2010, with interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $15.10 per diem, without penalties. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39-8011930243-9 should be revoked for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Administrative Complaint) issued by the Department of Revenue (Department) on June 5, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the state revenue laws, including the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation doing business as The Hyde Park Cafe at 1806 West Platt Street, Tampa, Florida. For purposes of collecting and remitting sales and use taxes, it is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2) and is required to comply with chapter 212. Respondent holds Certificate of Registration number 39- 8011930243-9, which became effective on July 27, 2000. A certificate of registration is required in order to do business in the state and requires its holder to collect and remit sales tax pursuant to chapter 212. See § 212.05(1), Fla. Stat. Respondent is also an employing unit as defined in section 443.036(20) and is subject to the unemployment compensation tax (UCT) provisions of chapter 443, as provided in section 443.1215. Through an interagency agreement with the Department of Economic Opportunity, the Department provides collection services for UCTs. See § 443.1316(1), Fla. Stat. In doing so, the Department is considered to be administering a revenue law of the state. See § 443.1316(2), Fla. Stat. A dealer must file with the Department sales tax returns and remit the tax collected on a monthly basis. See § 212.15(1), Fla. Stat. Also, an employment unit must remit payment to the Department for UCTs due and owing on a quarterly basis. The Department is authorized to revoke a dealer's certificate of registration for failure to comply with state tax laws. See § 212.18(3)(e), Fla. Stat. If the Department files a warrant, notice of lien, or judgment lien certificate against the property of a dealer, it may also revoke a certificate of registration. See § 213.692(1), Fla. Stat. Before revoking a certificate of registration, the Department must convene an informal conference that the dealer is required to attend. See § 213.692(1)(a), Fla. Stat. At the conference, the dealer may either present evidence to refute the Department's allegations of noncompliance or enter into a compliance agreement with the Department to resolve the dealer's failure to comply with chapter 212. Id. After a compliance agreement is executed by the dealer, the Department may revoke the certificate of registration if the dealer fails to comply with its terms and conditions. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ E. If a breach occurs, the entire amount is due and payable immediately. Id. at ¶ G. An informal conference can be characterized as the Department's last administrative remedy to collect delinquent taxes before beginning revocation proceedings. A dealer can also enter into a diversion program with the State Attorney's Office to resolve liabilities, but the record shows that Respondent defaulted on that arrangement. According to the Department, collection problems with this dealer first began in 2003. Department records show that Respondent failed to remit required sales taxes for the months of January 2012, August through December 2012, January through December 2013, and January and February 2014. In addition, Respondent failed to remit UCTs for the calendar quarters ending September 2010, December 2010, March 2011, June 2011, September 2011, December 2011, March 2012, June 2012, September 2012, December 2012, and March 2013. Respondent does not dispute that it failed to timely remit and pay the foregoing taxes for the time periods listed above. For the purpose of collecting the delinquent taxes, the Department issued and filed against Respondent delinquent tax warrants, notices of lien, or judgment lien certificates in the Hillsborough County public records. See Pet'r Ex. 3. Before seeking revocation of Respondent's certificate of registration, on February 5, 2014, the Department's Tampa Service Center served on Respondent a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Notice). See Pet'r Ex. 4. The Notice scheduled an informal conference on March 21, 2014. It listed 16 periods of sales and use tax noncompliance and 11 periods of re-employment tax noncompliance and provided the total tax liability as of that date. This number was necessarily fluid, as the taxes owed were accruing interest, penalties, and/or fees on a daily basis. The purpose of the informal conference was to give Respondent a final opportunity to make full payment of all delinquent taxes, or to demonstrate why the Department should not revoke its Certificate of Registration. As pointed out by the Department, an informal conference allows a dealer to bring up "any concerns" that it has regarding its obligations. Respondent's manager and registered agent, Christopher Scott, appeared at the conference on behalf of Respondent.1/ At the meeting, he acknowledged that the dealer had not timely paid the taxes listed in the Notice and that the money was used instead to keep the business afloat. However, Mr. Scott presented paperwork representing that sales and use tax returns and payments for the months of November 2013 through February 2014 had just been filed online, and checks in the amount of $8,101.41 and $9,493.99 were recently sent to Tallahassee. It takes 24 hours for online payments to show up in the system, and even more time for checks to be processed in Tallahassee. Accordingly, the Department agreed that Mr. Scott could have a few more days before signing a compliance agreement. This would allow the Department to verify that the payments were posted and recalculate the amount of taxes still owed. Also, before entering a compliance agreement, Respondent was required to make a down payment of around $20,000.00. Mr. Scott had insufficient cash, and a delay of a few days would hopefully allow him to secure the necessary money for a down payment. When none of the payments had posted by March 25, 2014, the Department calculated a total liability of $113,448.13, consisting of sales and use taxes and UCTs, penalties, interest, and fees. As of that date, none of the taxes listed in Finding of Fact 9 had been paid. On March 25, 2014, Respondent's controller, who did not attend the informal conference, sent an email to the Department requesting a breakdown on the new tax liability. In response to her request, the Department faxed a copy of the requested information. See Resp. Ex. 4. After getting this information, the controller continued to take the position that the Department's calculations overstate Respondent's tax liability. On March 31, 2014, Mr. Scott signed the compliance agreement. See Pet'r Ex. 6. Despite the controller testifying that she did not agree with the numbers, no question was raised by Mr. Scott when he signed the agreement. By then, the check in the amount of $8,101.41 had cleared and been credited to Respondent's account. Along with other funds, it was used towards the down payment of $20,000.00. The record does not show the status of the other payments that Mr. Scott claimed were mailed or filed online prior to the informal conference; however, on March 31, 2014, except for the one check, none had yet posted. The compliance agreement required scheduled payments for 12 months, with the final payment, a balloon payment in an undisclosed amount, being subject to renegotiation in the last month. Payments one and two were $1,500.00, while payments three through 11 were $2,900.00. The compliance agreement reflected a balance owed of $95,887.36, consisting of $60,504.34 in sales taxes and $35,347.02 in UCTs.2/ In return for the Department refraining from pursuing revocation proceedings, the compliance agreement required Respondent to "remit all past due amounts to the Department as stated in the attached payment agreement," "accurately complete and timely file all required tax returns and reports for the next 12 months," and "timely remit all taxes due for the next 12 months." Pet'r Ex. 1, p. 1. In other words, the compliance agreement addressed both delinquent taxes and current taxes that would be due during the following 12-month period, and it required that both categories of taxes be timely paid in the manner prescribed by the agreement. To summarize the salient points of the agreement, all taxes were to be timely paid; delinquent taxes were to be paid by certified check, money order, or cash and were to be mailed or hand delivered to the Tampa Service Center and not Tallahassee; and while not specifically addressed in the agreement, the dealer was instructed to pay all current obligations electronically, as required by law. Otherwise, Respondent was in violation of the compliance agreement. A Payment Agreement Schedule for past due taxes was incorporated into the compliance agreement and provided that the first payment was due April 30, 2014, payable to: Florida Department of Revenue, Tampa Service Center, 6302 East Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33619. Payments 2 through 12 were to be mailed or hand delivered to the same address. This meant, with no ambiguity, that money should not be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that these instructions were misunderstood. Unless a waiver is granted, Respondent is required by statute and rule to electronically file sales and use tax returns and UCT reports. See § 213.755, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 12-24.009 (where a taxpayer has paid its taxes in the prior state fiscal year in an amount of $20,000.00 or more, subsequent payments shall be made electronically). No waivers have been approved. In 2003, the Department notified Respondent of these requirements and Respondent complied with this directive until 2009. For reasons not disclosed, in 2009 Respondent voluntarily quit filing electronically. The record is silent on why this was allowed.3/ In any event, at the informal conference, Mr. Scott was specifically told that all current returns, reports, and taxes must be filed electronically, and not by mail, and that no money should be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that he misunderstood these instructions. In its PRO, Respondent correctly points out that the requirement to file current returns electronically was not specifically addressed in the compliance agreement. This is because the compliance agreement does not set forth every statutory and rule requirement that applies to a dealer. If this amount of detail were required, a dealer could ignore any otherwise applicable rule or statute not found in the compliance agreement. This contention has no merit. Respondent failed to electronically file the current sales and use tax return and payment for the month of March 2014, due no later than April 21, 2014. Instead, it sent a paper check, which was returned by the bank for insufficient funds. This constituted a breach of the compliance agreement. Despite repeated instructions on how and where to pay the delinquent taxes, payment 1, due on April 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent to Tallahassee, rather than the Tampa office. This contravened the compliance agreement. When payment was not timely received by the Tampa Service Center, Respondent was told that a check must be delivered to the Tampa office by May 9. Respondent hand delivered a second check, this one certified, to the Tampa Service Center on May 9, 2014, or after the April 30 due date. The second check was treated as payment 1. Respondent points out that on May 7 the Tampa Service Center granted its request for an extension of time until May 9 in which to deliver the certified check. While this is true, the extension was allowed in an effort to "work with" the Respondent on the condition that the account would be brought current by that date; otherwise, revocation proceedings would begin. Even if the extra ten days is construed as a grace period for payment 1, there were other violations of the compliance agreement set forth below. Payment 2 for delinquent taxes, due on May 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent by mail to Tallahassee rather than the Tampa Service Center.4/ This contravened the compliance agreement. After the May 30, 2014 payment, Respondent made no further payments pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule. This constituted a violation of the compliance agreement. Respondent did not remit payment with its current sales and use return for the month of August 2014. This contravened the compliance agreement. Respondent did not file any current sales and use tax returns or remit payment for the months of July 2014 or September through January 2015. This contravened the compliance agreement. Beginning in March 2014, Respondent filed current reemployment tax returns and payments using the incorrect tax rate on every return. This delayed their processing and resulted in penalties being imposed. In addition, even though Respondent was repeatedly told that such returns must be filed electronically, none were filed in that manner, as required by statute and rule. This contravened the compliance agreement. In its PRO, Respondent contends the compliance agreement cannot be enforced because there was no "meeting of the minds" by the parties on all essential terms of the agreement. Specifically, it argues that the total amount of taxes owed was still in dispute -- the dealer contended that it owed $23,000.00 less than was shown in the agreement; the Payment Schedule Agreement did not specify the amount of the final balloon payment; the compliance agreement failed to state when payments are due if the due date falls on a weekend or holiday; the compliance agreement did not specify how the dealer's payments would be allocated between UCTs and sales and use taxes; and the compliance agreement failed to address the issue of filing electronically. Although some of these issues were not raised in the parties' Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, or even addressed by testimony at hearing, they are all found to be without merit for the reasons expressed below. First, Mr. Scott did not dispute the amount of taxes owed when he signed the agreement, and he brought no evidence to the conference to support a different amount. Second, as explained to Mr. Scott at the informal conference, the precise amount of the balloon payment can only be established in the 12th month. This is because the exact amount depends on the dealer's compliance with the agreement over the preceding 11 months, and the amount of interest, penalties, and/or other fees that may have accrued during the preceding year. Third, there is no evidence that the dealer was confused when a due date for a payment fell on a weekend or holiday. Even if it was confused, reference to section 212.11(1)(e) and (f) would answer this question. Fourth, there is no statute or rule that requires the Department to specify how the delinquent payments are allocated. Moreover, neither Mr. Scott nor the controller requested that such an allocation be incorporated into the agreement before it was signed. Finally, the issue of filing electronically already has been addressed in Finding of Fact 22 and Endnote 3. At hearing, Respondent's controller testified that she was out of town when the conference was held, suggesting that Mr. Scott, who is not an accountant, was at a disadvantage when he attended the informal conference. However, Respondent had six weeks' notice before the conference, and there is no evidence that Respondent requested that the meeting be rescheduled to a more convenient day. Also, Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Scott was authorized to represent its interests at the conference, or that he could have been briefed by the controller before attending the informal conference or signing the compliance agreement. See also Endnote 1. Notably, at hearing, the controller testified that she "was involved in actually negotiating the agreement both before and after it was actually signed" even though she did not attend the conference. Tr. at 89. Respondent also contends that after the Department considered the compliance agreement to be breached, the dealer had no further obligation to make payments pursuant to the agreement or state law until the parties negotiated a new agreement. Aside from Respondent's failure to cite any authority to support this proposition, nothing in the compliance agreement comports with this assertion. To the contrary, the compliance agreement specifically provides that if a breach occurs, the entire tax liability becomes due immediately. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ G. Thus, Respondent is obligated to pay the entire tax liability, which now exceeds $200,000.00. All other arguments raised by Respondent have been carefully considered and are rejected as being without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39- 8011930243-9. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is qualified to be licensed as a Florida real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from Florida State University. After receiving a Florida license as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) in 1974, Petitioner worked as a CPA in private practice until 1978. He then returned to school at Trinity University, where he earned a Master of Science degree in Health Care Administration. Petitioner worked for the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) for approximately 20 years. In the early 1980's, Petitioner's job with HCA involved the management of physician clinics. One of the physicians requested Petitioner to prepare some financial statements and to assist with the preparations of some federal income tax returns for a private client. At that time, Petitioner was living and working in two locations: Atlanta, Georgia, and Dothan, Alabama. Petitioner was not licensed to practice as a CPA in any state except Florida. For approximately two and one-half years, Petitioner helped the private client maintain her books. During this time, Petitioner corresponded with the client, sending her letters with CPA after his name. In 1986, Petitioner decided to discontinue his business relationship with the private client. The private client, who was upset, filed a complaint against Petitioner. In 1987, the private client's complaint resulted in Petitioner’s pleading no contest to the offense of identifying himself as a CPA when he was not a licensed CPA in Georgia. Petitioner subsequently satisfied all sanctions related to the Georgia offense. The Florida Board of Accountancy has not disciplined Petitioner's CPA license. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner's Florida CAP license was inactive. In 1991, Petitioner received a stock bonus from his employer, HCA, when it purchased a private hospital. The bonus consisted of stock certificates in a spin-off company known as Quorum Health Care. The stock was restricted and could not be sold for five years. Petitioner never received a Federal Income Tax Form 1099 related to the stock bonus. Petitioner placed the stock certificates in his safe. He did not include the stock bonus on his personal federal income tax return. In 1994, the Internal Revenue Service audited Petitioner's personal tax returns. During the audit, Petitioner disclosed the stock bonus and immediately filed an amended income tax return, paying all tax and interest due and all penalties. In 1996, Petitioner filed a whistleblower lawsuit against his employer for Medicare fraud. Because the lawsuit was filed in Alabama, the United States Attorney in Birmingham, Alabama, intervened in the case. The lawsuit resulted in the recovery of $180,000,000 from Quorum Health Care. Petitioner was entitled to a whistleblower award in the amount of $5,000,000. In 1999, before Petitioner received his financial reward from the lawsuit, the United States Attorney in Birmingham, Alabama, advised Petitioner that he would be charged with failure to file a correct federal income tax return for the years 1991 and 1992. Petitioner granted the government's request to extend the statute of limitations while the government investigated the tax fraud allegations against him. In 2000, Petitioner pled guilty to income tax fraud and agreed to forego any reward for his participation in the whistleblower lawsuit. Petitioner was sentenced to serve two years in a federal prison, followed by one year of supervised probation. Petitioner also paid a $50,000 fine. Petitioner was incarcerated for 367 days. He was released from federal prison in August 2002. His supervised probation terminated February 2004. In January 2006, Petitioner's civil rights were restored. In an effort to prove rehabilitation, Petitioner presented evidence to show his involvement and/or active participation with the following: (a) his church; (b) children's sports programs; (c) Habitat for Humanity; (d) neighborhood hurricane recovery; (e) and other activities beneficial to his friends and family. The following three witnesses testified on Petitioner's behalf at the hearing: (a) Mike Papantonio, an attorney and Petitioner's brother-in-law; (b) Randal Spencer, a Florida licensed real estate broker who, along with his partners, sold a commercial building to Petitioner's wife; and (c) Carl Collins, Petitioner's neighbor since 2000. Each witness testified that Petitioner is honest, trustworthy, and of good character. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was owner/manager of CommStructure, a company that manufactures and installs cellular towers. Petitioner oversees all financial aspects of the company. Petitioner's wife owns a real estate brokerage company, Spencer Realty. If Petitioner becomes licensed as a real estate sales associate, he would assist his wife in her business. A real estate sales associate, like a CPA, is responsible for important financial transactions where accuracy is important. Therefore, a real estate sales associate must be trustworthy regarding financial matters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner a license as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel R. Biggins, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1020 Verona Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Nancy B. Hogan, Chairman Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The parties agreed at the hearing that there were no issues of fact which remained to be determined. The parties stipulated that the relevant facts are as set out in paragraph 5 of the Petition for Administrative Hearing. The following findings are quoted directly from paragraph 5 of the Petition. Petitioner is a federally chartered savings and loan association. Petitioner initially employed the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting for Federal Income Tax purposes. In a desire to more clearly reflect income, Petitioner applied for and received permission from the Internal Revenue Service allowing Petitioner to change its method of tax accounting from the cash to the accrual method, pursuant to Revenue Procedure 70-27. This change was to commence with the calendar year 1971. Consistent with this accounting method change, all net accrued income as of January 1, 1971, was recorded in its entirety in Petitioner's financial statements as of December 31, 1970. The total net adjustment required to convert to the accrual method was $758,911.00. Pursuant to an agreement entered into with the Internal Revenue Service, an annual adjustment of $75,891.00 was required. The annual adjustment spread the effect of the accounting change over a 10-year period, despite the fact that all the income was realized prior to January 1, 1971. On January 1, 1972, the Florida Income Tax Code became effective. Petitioner timely filed its 1970 and 1971 Florida Intangible Personal Property Tax Returns. Upon subsequent review of Petitioner's records, it became apparent that the intangible tax had been overpaid and a refund claim was submitted. The refund was issued to Petitioner by the State of Florida during the calendar year 1973 and reported in Petitioner's 1973 Federal Corporate Income Tax Return. On December 16, 1975, Respondent notified Petitioner that Petitioner was deficient in its payment of Florida Corporate Income Tax in the amount of $25,386.84. The total deficiency consisted of $3,267.00 for the year ended December 31, 1972; $19,202.00 for the year ended December 31, 1973; and $2,916.84 for the year ended December 31, 1974. Included in the alleged total deficiency of $25,386.84 is a tax in the amount of $14,696.70 for the year 1973. This tax is attributable to Petitioner's apportionment of a part of its 1973 income to sources outside of the State of Florida. Petitioner is no longer protesting this deficiency. On February 9, 1976, Petitioner filed its protest against Respondent's determination that a deficiency in tax existed. By letter dated March 9, 1976, Respondent denied Petitioner's protest filed on February 9, 1976.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a waiver of the bond requirement set forth Section 559.927, Florida Statutes.
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: Ladatco is a "seller of travel" as that term is defined in Section 559.927(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Ladatco deals exclusively in wholesale travel packages. Ladatco primarily packages and sells tours of Central and South America to retail travel agents. Until the last few years, the retail travel agents handled virtually all of the ticketing involved in the packages. Changes in the industry have resulted in Ladatco becoming more involved in the ticketing aspect as part of the services it provides in assembling the packages. However, Ladatco has very little direct contact with consumers. Ladatco originally began operations in 1967 as a subsidiary of another company. Ladatco has been conducting business in its current corporate form since 1976. Michelle Shelburne has been working for the company since 1969. She has been the president of Ladatco for at least the last ten years and she owns fifty percent (50 percent) of the outstanding stock. Annie Burke and Rosa Perez are the other officers of the company and they each own approximately twenty two and half percent (22 1/2 percent) of the stock. Both Burke and Perez have worked for Ladatco since approximately 1970. The remaining five percent of the outstanding stock is owned by an attorney who has represented Ladatco since 1967. Ladatco has seven other full time employees and operates out of an office building that is owned jointly by Shelburne, Perez and Burke. Under Section 559.927(10)(b), Florida Statutes, a seller of travel is obligated to post a performance bond or otherwise provide security to the Department to cover potential future claims made by travelers. The security required by this statute is for the benefit of consumers and may be waived by the Department in certain circumstances. On or about May 27, 1994, Ladatco submitted an Application for Security Waiver (the "Application") pursuant to Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes. In lieu of audited financial statements, Ladatco submitted a copy of its 1993 income tax return with the Application. Line 30 of that income tax return reflects a net loss for tax purposes of $100,722. In reviewing an application for a bond waiver, the Department looks at the taxable income on the income tax return. It is the Department's position that if a company shows a loss for tax purposes, it is lacking in financial responsibility and is ineligible for a bond waiver. Based on this policy, the Department denied Ladatco's Application by letter dated August 2, 1994. The certified public accountant who has handled all outside accounting services for Ladatco since 1977 testified at the hearing in this matter. He submitted a history of operations for the company from 1985 through 1993. The accountant explained that, in 1986, Ladatco acquired a very expensive computer system with customized software. The cost of this system was depreciated over a five year period. In addition, until 1991, the company operated out of a building that it owned. The building was sold to the individual principals of the company in 1991. During the years the company owned the building, a significant amount of depreciation was generated for tax purposes. The large depreciation expenses for the years 1986 through 1991 generated losses for tax purposes which have been carried over for future years. Thus, while the company's operations for 1993 generated a profit of $65,000, the loss carry over resulted in a net loss for income tax purposes. The current year forecast for the company, based upon existing bookings, projects a net income in excess of $64,000 for the year ending December 31, 1994. In sum, an isolated look at the taxable income loss reflected on the 1993 income tax return does not provide an accurate picture of the financial responsibility of this company. This closely owned company has been in business for approximately twenty eight (28) years. The three principals in the company have all been with the firm for more than twenty four (24) years. The company has demonstrated a great deal of stability and, while profitability has fluctuated from year to year, the company has continually met its obligations for more than a quarter century. There is every indication that it will continue to do so in the future. Ladatco has maintained a bond with the Airline Reporting Corporation ("ARC") for approximately two and a half years. The amount of the bond varies from year to year, but is generally in the vicinity of $35,000. The statute provides that a company which has successfully maintained a bond with the ARC for three years is entitled to a security waiver. While the ARC bond only protects the airlines and not the travelers, Ladatco will qualify for a waiver under this provision in approximately May of 1995. There is no indication of any unresolved complaints against Ladatco nor is there any evidence of civil, criminal or administrative action against the company.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order granting Ladatco's application for security waiver pursuant to Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. 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 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only the Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my ruling on those proposals. Adopted in pertinent part Finding of Fact 6 and also addressing the Preliminary Statement and in the Conclusions of Law. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Facts 7 and 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Michelle D. Shelburne, President Ladatco, Inc. d/b/a Ladatco Tours 2220 Coral Way Miami, Florida 33145 Jay S. Levenstein, Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, by failing to pay sales tax and local government infrastructure surtax, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order upholding its assessment against Petitioner in full, including all taxes, penalties, and interest statutorily due until date of payment for both the sales and use tax and the local government infrastructure. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1998.
Findings Of Fact In 1972 Petitioner received $743,982 of income from state and municipal bonds. On its federal income tax return the Petitioner allocated $471,229 of this amount to the policyholders' share as required by law and $272,753 to the company's share (Phase I). The Phase II figures were $359,669 and $384,313 respectively. Respondent has added back the entire $743,982 for purposes of computing Petitioner's Florida taxable income. Petitioner added back the $272,753 (Phase I) and $384,313 (Phase II). For 1972 Petitioner accrued $350,000 of Florida taxes on its federal income tax return. In computing its deductions on its federal income tax return 36.6612 percent of this amount was deducted in the Phase I computation and 51.6564 percent in the Phase II computation. Respondent has added back all of the Florida tax accrued in computing the Florida income tax owed by Petitioner. Petitioner's position is that only the company's percentages were deductible and only these amounts should be added back. The amount of additional Florida income tax assessment proposed for 1972 by the Respondent over that paid by Petitioner is $21,234. In 1973 Petitioner received $552,408 of income from state and municipal bonds. On its federal income tax return Petitioner allocated $335,662 of this amount to policyholders' share as required by law and $216,786 to the company's share (Phase I). The Phase II figures were $248,789 and $303,619 respectively. Respondent has added back the entire $552,408 for purposes of computing Petitioner's taxable income. Petitioner added back the $216,786 (Phase I) and $303,619 (Phase II). For 1973 Petitioner accrued $475,000 of Florida taxes on its federal income tax return. In computing its deductions on its federal income tax return 39.2438 percent of this amount was deductible in Phase I and 54.9628 percent in Phase II. Respondent has added back all of the Florida tax accrued. Petitioner's position is that only the company's percentages were deductible and only these amounts should be added back. The amount of additional Florida income tax assessment proposed for 1973 by Respondent was $20,184. It was further stipulated that the sole issues here involved are: The computation of the amount of tax exempt interest which is excludable from taxable income under section 103(a) Internal Revenue Code for purposes of the Florida corporate income tax; and The computation of the amount of Florida income tax accrued which is deductible for purposes of federal income tax and added back for purposes of computing the Florida income tax.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Ronald M. Shultz, violated section 473.323(1)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes (2014), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61H1-23.002(1)(a) and (b), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence and the witness testimony presented, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are found: The Florida Board of Accountancy is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of certified public accounting pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 473, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Ronald M. Shultz, is a certified public accountant (CPA) licensed in the state of Florida. Respondent has been licensed since 1997 and holds license number AC 003065. His license is currently active, and he has no history of discipline by the Board. Respondent’s address of record is 1031 Northwest 6th Street, Suite F-2, Gainesville, Florida 32601. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the owner of a CPA firm in the state of Florida, i.e., Ronald M. Shultz, CPA, PA. The firm’s license was first issued in May of 2006, and is also in active status. Respondent is the president and sole shareholder for his firm. While he employed others who worked in the firm, Respondent is ultimately responsible for all aspects of business conducted by the firm. Ronald M. Shultz, CPA, PA, is in the business of providing tax services to clients, including the preparation of federal income tax returns. The normal procedure employed in Respondent’s office required that, once a client’s tax return had been prepared, the client was called to come in and receive a copy of the return for review. The client also was given a copy of an IRS E-File signature authorization form (Form 8879), although the evidence was unclear as to when the form was given to the client. In any event, the client was usually told to review the return, and then a meeting would be scheduled to go over the return, especially in those cases where the return was complex or had a lot of “moving parts.” Once the client had an opportunity to review the return and discuss it with Respondent, the client would provide a signed copy of Form 8879 and Respondent’s firm’s personnel would electronically file the return. No return is supposed to be filed without a signed Form 8879. During the period giving rise to these proceedings, Respondent had a part-time employee named Jeff Gruver, and a former IRS-enrolled agent named Jeff Conklin. Mr. Gruver usually answered the phones, took messages, provided copies of returns to clients, and, once things were finalized with a return, electronically filed returns as directed. Mr. Gruver could answer simple tax-related questions such as, “the return indicates you are getting a refund of this amount,” or the return shows that you need to pay this much in taxes.” Any more complicated questions were fielded by Mr. Conklin, or if necessary, Mr. Shultz. Mr. Conklin is someone with whom Mr. Shultz had worked previously, and actually prepared tax returns for the firm. Mr. Shultz would generally review his work, and would go over the return with the client. During this time period, Respondent relied on Mr. Conklin to a greater extent than was his normal practice. Mr. Shultz was in the midst of a protracted divorce, and helping with the care of his father, who was in declining health. William and Jo Lee Beaty were clients of Respondent, and had been clients for several years. Respondent’s office prepared their federal income taxes since at least 2009. The Beatys’ tax return generally has a lot of “moving parts.” They typically request an extension of time for filing, and bring their paperwork to Respondent’s office early in October, in order to have the return prepared by the October 15 deadline. Normally, the Beatys will owe additional taxes. They generally reviewed the return with Mr. Shultz, signed the Form 8879, and provided a check to send to the IRS when the return was filed. In 2014, Mr. Beaty took the documents necessary for the preparation of the Beatys’ 2013 tax return to Respondent’s office. Mr. Beaty acknowledged that he often delivered the documentation very late in the process–-often just days before the October 15 deadline--but thought that this year, he had delivered it as much as six weeks before. The complaint the Beatys filed with the Department indicates that the documents were delivered on or about October 1. While Respondent had no direct knowledge of when the documents were delivered to the office, he testified that his office records indicated that it was no earlier than October 1.1/ After consideration of all of the evidence, the documents were delivered most likely sometime in very late September or on October 1, 2014. Respondent directed Jeff Conklin to prepare the Beatys’ tax return. Mr. Conklin had prepared their tax return the year before. In the days immediately preceding the October deadline, Jo Lee Beaty started calling Respondent’s office to see when she and her husband would be able to review the return and determine how much money they owed in taxes. She could not reach anyone from the firm, despite repeated phone calls. Someone from Respondent’s office (presumably either Mr. Conklin or Mr. Gruver) electronically submitted the Beatys’ 2013 federal income tax return to the IRS on October 15, 2014. However, Respondent did not review the return before it was filed and the Beatys did not see it, and were not informed as to its contents. On or about November 6, 2014, Mr. Conklin notified Mr. Shultz that he was quitting his job, effective immediately. He did not notify Respondent that there were any problems with the Beatys’ tax return. Respondent was knowledgeable about the Beatys’ prior returns, and knew that the 2013 return would include a significant amount of information, including multiple Schedule Cs, Schedule K-1s, significant information regarding businesses owned by the Beatys, and property rentals. Respondent was also aware that the Beatys typically wanted to review their tax return with him prior to its filing. Not only were the Beatys unable to contact Respondent in order to schedule a meeting prior to the tax-filing deadline, but they were unable to contact him to determine whether the return was actually filed or to determine how much money was owed. Mrs. Beaty called the office the day after the deadline and no one answered. The office was actually closed that day. Mrs. Beaty made other calls to the office, although she was unable to say specifically how many times. However, when she was still unable to speak to anyone on November 13, 2014, nearly a month after the filing deadline, she made a request to the IRS to get a copy of the couple’s tax return. The IRS sent the Beatys a transcript of their filed return that same day, although it is unclear when they received it. Mrs. Beaty continued to attempt to reach Respondent, with no success. She even spoke to Respondent’s wife on the phone, and requested that she have Respondent return Mrs. Beaty’s phone calls. Respondent first learned that the Beatys were trying to reach him when his wife called him with the message from Mrs. Beaty. Respondent finally spoke to Mrs. Beaty on November 18, 2014. During this phone call, Respondent advised Mrs. Beaty that he would have their materials ready the following week. The Beatys did not receive the return or their documents as promised. On or about December 9, 2014, Mrs. Beaty sent Respondent an email requesting their return and backup materials. The email states: Ron, We were not given an opportunity to review the return with you prior to you submitting it to the IRS electronically. I called for several days prior to the final October 15th deadline to file trying to talk with you an/or [sic] Jeff. No one was available. My calls were not returned. October 14th and 15th I called more than once trying to find out what we were going to owe so that we could be prepared to include a check with the return we would need to sign and send to the IRS. Still no return phone call. Late in the day on October 15, I was assured by Jeff Gruver that the return would be filed and we would be able to take care of everything October 16th. It is nearly two months now, we have not reviewed our return with you, for accuracy, as has been the procedure in years past. We have not received the return for our signatures and instructions for submission. It is not for a lack of trying. After the filing deadline, on October 16th we began calling the office on numerous occasions to talk with you or Jeff and get our return. We left messages both with Jeff Gruver and on the various voice mailboxes to no avail. I have driven to the office only to find the man who was renting space from you there. He knew nothing of your schedule or when I might find you. He did indicate that Jeff C. now [sic] longer worked there. After calling Debra at the numbers on your sign twice you finally called. That was on or about November 18th or 19th. You told me you needed to review the return and would get it to us that week. I told you it needed to be before Friday November 21, 2014 as I was having surgery that day. You told me it would be before my surgery. We didn’t hear from you as promised. I called again the beginning of the next week (Thanksgiving week) and left a message which you returned early Tuesday afternoon I believe. You said you would get it to me later probably that day (this was a day that you had an afternoon doctor appointment). To date I have not heard from you again and had it not been for my call to the IRS I would have no proof that the return was filed nor any idea of what we owe. We are sorry to have to terminate our relationship under these circumstances. We had previously been very satisfied with your service and as you know we had referred people to you. Ron, your negligence and non-feasance comes as a great surprise. It is nonetheless inexcusable. We are contemplating reporting your inaction to the Florida DBPR. Please respond to this email and tell me what time before 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 9, 2014, so I can pick up all of the documents we gave you to prepare our 2013 tax return, and copies of all of our records. With disappointment, Jo Beaty Respondent did not respond to this email in a timely fashion and states that he did not do so because he was not checking his email regularly due to the issues with his father’s health. As a consequence, his first response to the email was dated December 22, 2014, in which he stated in part: First speaking about your federal tax return. Jeff Conklin told me your return was complete. He then told me basically he had to quit his current position with me for personal reason [sic] and simply walked out. When I went to find your file, none of your paperwork had been copied for what we call work papers . . . . Since Jeff left your file is [sic] disarray, I had to organize your paper work so that I could do an accurate review of your return. Yesterday I completed putting all of your paper work together and is now ready for my review. My plan is to complete the review tonight. And then, we can arrange a time to meet to go over your return. Despite this communication over two months after the filing of the Beatys’ tax return, they still did not receive their tax return or supporting documentation. The Beatys hand-delivered a complaint to the Department on December 22, 2014. Respondent was sent a notification letter regarding the complaint on December 29, 2014. He placed the documentation in the Beatys’ mailbox that same day. With the tax return and supporting documentation was an invoice for his services at a 50-percent discounted rate of $350. The Beatys were going to owe money, including some interest and penalties for being late, even had they paid their taxes on October 15, because payment was actually due on April 15. The IRS charges a failure to pay proper estimate penalty of $200. When taxes are paid after the due date, the IRS also charges a penalty of .5 percent of the unpaid amount due per month, up to 25 percent of the amount due. Any portion of a month is treated as a full month. On November 24, 2014, the IRS sent the Beatys a letter notifying them that they owed their taxes, including the $200 failure to pay proper estimated tax penalty; $879.08 in penalties, and $406 in interest. Some, but not all, of the penalties and interest are due to Respondent’s failure to timely provide a copy of their tax return. The Department expended $260 in costs, not including time by the legal section, in the investigation of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Board of Accountancy enter a final order finding that Respondent, Ronald M. Shultz, violated section 473.323(1)(g) and (h), and rule 61H1-23.002(1)(a) and (b). It is further recommended that Respondent’s license be reprimanded; that he be placed on probation for a period of one year, subject to conditions determined by the Board; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500 and investigative costs of $260.00 DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a policy of Respondent prohibiting Respondent’s employees from engaging in preparation of federal income tax returns for profit during off-hours constitutes a rule subject to promulgation requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are employees of the Department of Revenue (DOR) who wish to prepare federal income tax returns. They assert they wish to prepare the returns on a pro bono basis and for hire in their non-working time for persons who are not required to file any tax returns with the State of Florida, and who are not required to pay court-ordered payments of child support. Each of the Petitioners is employed with the Respondent as a Tax Auditor II, III, or IV, and each is a Career Service employee with permanent status. Petitioners’ primary work function for the Respondent entails auditing State tax returns filed with DOR by business entities. Victor Novoa holds a bachelors degree in finance, and has 20 years experience working in the accounting field, including nine years auditing experience with the Respondent. Ana Socarras has a bachelor’s degree in the accounting field, and has been employed with the Respondent as an auditor since 1994. She has 15 years experience working in the accounting field. Enrique Altuzarra is a licensed Certified Public Accountant. He has more than 25 years experience in the area of accounting and auditing. Lander Carn holds a master’s degree in taxation, is a licensed Certified Public Accountant, and has 15 years experience in the accounting and auditing fields. Petitioners became aware, following their employment by Respondent, of Respondent’s policy prohibiting its employees from preparation of federal income tax returns for compensation during their non-working time. Respondent’s policy has been consistently disseminated to employees through group meetings with employees and in memoranda circulated by management to employees. Pro bono preparation of federal tax returns is permitted in some situations. Respondent’s policy is expressed also in Respondent’s “Code of Conduct” which is published to all employees. The policy provides: (2) Outside Preparation of Tax Returns and Other Forms Preparation of tax returns and other forms required by the Department of Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service, whether compensated or uncompensated, for persons other than family members is not permitted. Respondent also states the policy in its auditor’s manual in the following language: The Department has a policy specifically prohibiting all employees from preparing any state or federal tax returns, reports, declarations or documents, or otherwise [sic]engage in accounting, use, analysis or preparation of any financial records for consideration, or [sic] sign such tax document for compensation, gift, or favor. Respondent’s policy has found expression in Respondent’s official writings, monthly newsletter to employees, and memoranda addressed to employees and management. Statements of the policy have been systematically communicated to agency personnel with the intent and effect of prohibiting employee preparation of federal tax returns for compensation in the course of secondary employment and implemented with the direct and consistent effect of law. Respondent’s Code of Conduct literally prohibits any exception to the policy prohibiting participation by an employee in preparation of federal tax returns for pay during off-duty hours for anyone other than family members. Respondent’s Employee Handbook also makes it clear that any employee engaging in such conduct, absent specific approval, faces disciplinary action “up to and including dismissal.” As established by testimony of Glenn Bedonie, an employee of Respondent in various, highly responsible, management positions, and William P. Fritchman, a participant in development of the policy and Respondent’s former chief of personnel for 23 years, there has been no instance in which any employee has ever been permitted to prepare federal income tax returns “for hire” during off-duty time. As stipulated by the parties, Respondent has not adopted, in compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, the policy of refusing to allow employees to prepare federal tax returns for hire in secondary employment. Petitioners do not contemplate and do not desire to prepare federal tax returns in circumstances that would present a conflict of interest with their employment with Respondent. They do not seek to prepare tax returns for individuals who own a business, who are required to file state returns, and who are subject to audit by Respondent. Confidential tax information possessed by Respondent is not available to the Petitioners or other auditors within Respondent’s employment. Such information must be requested from a Computer Audit Analyst or a Senior Tax specialist on a specific taxpayer which the particular auditor has been assigned to audit. If deemed appropriate, the information may be made available to the auditor. Similarly, confidential tax information obtained by Respondent from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is adequately safeguarded from ready abuse by employees by requiring an auditor to justify the need for such information to a series of supervisory personnel. Respondent presented no creditable or persuasive evidence that it would be impractical or unfeasible to enact its present policy in compliance with requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1-5, below. Zurich is an insurer domiciled in the State of New York. Zurich is authorized to do insurance business in the State of Florida. Zurich pays insurance premium taxes to the State of Florida. As a foreign insurer doing business in Florida, Zurich is subject to the provisions of Florida's retaliatory tax, Section 624.5091, Florida Statutes. Respondent Department of Revenue (Revenue) is the state agency charged with the duty to implement and enforce Section 624.5091, Florida Statutes. Zurich's interests are substantially affected by Revenue's Rule 12B- 8.016(3)(a)(4), Florida Administrative Code, by virtue of the tax assessment made against Zurich pursuant to the rule. OTHER FACTS Prior to 1989, the Department of Insurance administered insurance taxation. Now, Revenue has that responsibility. Section 213.05, Florida Statutes, directs Revenue to administer provisions of Sections 624.509 through 624.514, Florida Statutes. Section 213.06(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes Revenue to promulgate rules to implement those responsibilities. Rule 12B-8.016 was first promulgated by Revenue in December of 1989 to implement statutory authority of Section 624.429 (currently renumbered as 624.5091). This statute authorized retaliatory taxation against non-domiciled insurers in the amount by which their state of domicile would tax Florida insurers in excess of Florida's comparable tax. The statute provides in pertinent part: When by or pursuant to the laws of any other state or foreign country any taxes, licenses, and other fees, in the aggregate, and any fines, penalties, deposit requirements, or other material obligations, prohibitions, or restrictions are or would be imposed upon Florida insurers or upon the agents or representatives of such insurers, which are in excess of such taxes, licenses, and other fees, in the aggregate, or other obligations, prohibitions, or restrictions directly imposed upon similar insurers, or upon the agents or representatives of such insurers, of such other state or country under the statutes of this state, so long as such laws of such other state or country continue in force or are so applied, the same taxes, licenses, and other fees, in the aggregate, or fines, penalties, deposit requirements, or other material obligations, prohibitions, or restrictions of whatever kind shall be imposed by the department upon the insurers, or upon the agents or representatives of such insurers, of such other state or country doing business or seeking to do business in this state. As it existed in 1989 and currently, the statute contains an exclusionary provision expressly excluding from the retaliatory tax any special purpose assessments in connection with insurance other than property insurance. This exclusionary provision is part of Subsection 3 of the current statute, 624.5091, and reads as follows: (3)This section does not apply as to personal income taxes, nor as to sales or use taxes, nor as to ad valorem taxes on real or personal property, nor as to reimbursement premiums paid to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, nor as to emergency assessments paid to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, nor as to special purpose obligations or assessments imposed in connection with particular kinds of insurance other than property insurance, except that deductions, from premium taxes or other taxes otherwise payable, allowed on account of real estate or personal property taxes paid shall be taken into consideration by the department in determining the propriety and extent of retaliatory action under this section. The parties concede that Revenue's Rule 12B-8.016 accurately tracts the first part of the retaliatory taxation statute. But a subpart of the Rule, 12B- 8.016(3)(a)(4), is challenged by Zurich in this proceeding because that subpart provides for inclusion of the assessment for administration of workers compensation in Florida and comparable assessments in other states. The rule subpart states: (3)(a) Other items which shall be included in the retaliatory calculations are: * * * 4. The workers compensation administrative assessment imposed by s. 440.51, F.S., as well as comparable assessments in other states. The State of Florida imposes assessment on workers compensation carriers such as Zurich in accordance with authority contained in Section 440.51, Florida Statutes, which is entitled "Expenses of Administration." Section 440.51 provides for the pro-rata assessment of all insurers and self- insurers of workers compensation to cover expenses of administering the workers compensation program. The assessment is a "special fund" that does not involve appropriated funds or general state revenues. Zurich's home state of New York imposes a comparable assessment. In accordance with Rule 12B-8.016(3)(a)(4), Florida Administrative Code, Revenue includes calculations for the Worker's Compensation Board Administrative Fund in the state of New York in Zurich's retaliatory tax calculation. In drafting the rule in 1989, Revenue relied upon Attorney General Opinion 057-173, which advised that Florida's Worker's Compensation Administrative Assessment should be considered a "tax" for purposes of retaliatory tax calculation. On this basis, Revenue's rule requires that such assessments be considered as "taxes" and included in the retaliatory tax calculation. However, following the issuance of Attorney General Opinion 057-173, the Florida legislature in 1959 enacted the present Subsection 624.5091(3), Florida Statutes, specifically excluding the consideration of "special purpose obligations or assessments imposed in connection with particular kinds of insurance other than property insurance" in retaliatory tax calculations. Following the 1959 enactment of the exclusionary language contained in Subsection 624.5091(3), Florida Statutes, the Department of Insurance did not include comparable worker compensation assessments of other states. The Department of Insurance administered insurance taxation until 1989. Department of Insurance forms introduced into evidence for 1986 showed that the Florida assessment, pursuant to Section 440.51 Florida Statutes, was treated as a deduction against Florida's premium tax and added back in on the Florida side of the retaliatory tax calculation. But the assessment was not included in a manner to inflate the calculation of the domiciliary state's comparative tax base. When Revenue assumed administration of insurance taxation in 1989, a proposed rule and an emergency rule were promulgated. Neither provided for inclusion of foreign states' special purpose administrative assessments in retaliatory tax calculation. In the course of the promulgation process, the determination to treat the worker compensation administrative assessment as a tax became a part of the rule. The purpose of Florida's retaliatory statute is to influence other states' legislative discretion to lower the tax burden on Florida insurers doing business in those other states. The items to be compared for retaliatory purposes are determined by the legislature and not by Revenue, Revenue auditors, or other states.
