The Issue The issues presented for determination are whether Respondent violated Subsections 106.11(3) and 106.19(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Order of Probable Cause dated May 22, 2001, and the Statement of Findings dated April 3, 2001.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order dismissing all charges against Petitioner, Bruce Grady. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 26th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herron, Esquire Mark Herron, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 701 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact On May 30, 2008, FEC entered an Order of Probable Cause charging Respondent with the following violations: Count 1: On or about January 10, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.07(1), Florida Statutes, when he failed to file with the filing office his 2006 Q4 CTR due on that date, listing all contributions received and all expenditures made, by or on behalf of the candidate. Count 2: On or about May 7, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.141(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to properly dispose of surplus campaign funds within 90 days after he was eliminated and to file a report reflecting the disposition of those funds, when Respondent failed to qualify between January 30, 2007 and February 6, 2007, and failed to dispose of funds in his campaign account and file a report reflecting the disposition of the funds on or before May 7, 2007. On or about December 16, 2008, Respondent was personally served with the Order of Probable Cause by process server. Because Respondent neither elected to have a formal or informal hearing conducted before FEC nor elected to resolve the complaint by consent order within 30 days after the date of the filing of FEC's allegations, on January 30, 2009, FEC referred the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), pursuant to Section 106.25(5), Florida Statutes (2007). The case was filed at DOAH on February 2, 2009. On February 6, 2009, Petitioner filed and served its First Requests for Admission upon Respondent. Respondent had 35 days, including time for mailing, to either admit or deny each of the Requests for Admission. Rule 1.370(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides: Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter within 30 days after service of the request . . Thirty-five days from February 6, 2009, was March 13, 2009. Respondent failed to file a response to FEC's Requests for Admission by March 13, 2009. Additionally, Rule 1.370(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides: Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. On March 17, 2009, Petitioner filed its Motion for Summary Final Order, based on the unanswered Requests for Admission, and, therefore, based upon the conclusively established admissions of fact. Respondent filed no response in opposition to the Motion for Summary Final Order, as permitted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.204. On April 3, 2009, an Order to Show Cause was entered, requiring Respondent to show cause by April 10, 2009, why a Summary Final Order should not be entered against Respondent. Respondent did not file any response. The April 3, 2009, Order to Show Cause gave Respondent a final opportunity to dispute any or all facts, to set aside the Requests for Admission, or to otherwise show cause why the Motion for Summary Final Order should not be granted. Respondent has not shown good cause. Respondent's failure to provide a written answer or objection to FEC's Requests for Admission conclusively establishes the following determinative facts, which prove the charges herein:1/ Respondent signed a Statement of Candidate form for Jacksonville City Council, District 7, on June 8, 2005. Respondent filed an Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Candidates (DS-DE-9) on or about June 8, 2005, designating himself as the treasurer of his campaign. Respondent did not file his 2006 Q4 Campaign Treasurer's report by January 10, 2007. Respondent received a Memorandum from Beth Fleet, Director of Candidate Administration, dated January 12, 2007, notifying him that he failed to file his 2006 Q4 Campaign Treasurer's Report that was due on January 10, 2007. Respondent received an April 27, 2007, Memorandum from Jerry Holland, Duval County Supervisor of Elections, notifying Respondent that he failed to file his 2006 Q4 Campaign Treasurer's Report that was due on January 10, 2007. Respondent's failure to file his 2006 Q4 Campaign Treasurer's Report is a violation of Section 106.07(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent's Termination Report (TR) was due on May 7, 2007. Respondent received a letter dated April 27, 2007, from Jerry Holland, Duval County Supervisor of Elections, notifying him that his TR was due on May 7, 2007. Respondent did not file his TR with the Duval County Supervisor of Elections by May 7, 2007. Respondent's failure to file his TR by May 7, 2007, is a violation of Section 106.141(1), Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether Petitioner violated the Florida Election Code as alleged in the Order of Probable Cause entered November 25, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Chapters 97 through 106 comprise the Florida Election Code (Code). Pursuant to the Code, the Commission is specifically empowered to enforce the provisions of Chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes. Mr. Smith is a principal in Smith Brothers Paint and Body Shop and runs the daily operations of the business. In addition to painting and repairing motor vehicles, he has a wrecker service. He ran for county commission in Escambia County in 1996 but was not elected. He ran again in 2000 and was successful. Allegations of impropriety surrounding the 2000 race caused the Commission to conduct an investigation into Mr. Smith's campaign practices. When Mr. Smith ran for the position of county commissioner in 1996, his campaign treasurer was Lance Simmons. Mr. Simmons was a certified public accountant and Mr. Smith's friend. Mr. Simmons provided this service at no charge. The campaign financing reports prepared by Mr. Simmons were correct and professional. Lynn Kowalchyk, Assistant Supervisor of Elections in Escambia County, who has worked for the Supervisor of Elections in Escambia County for 25 years, opined that the submissions for that campaign were some of the best the Supervisor of Elections has received. Because Mr. Smith lost the election, he felt too embarrassed to ask Mr. Simmons to serve as his campaign treasurer for the 2000 race. He decided that he would serve as his own treasurer. Mr. Smith ran for county commissioner in District 5, which is the largest district in Escambia County, Florida. The district comprised the northern part of the county, which is more sparsely settled than the other districts in the county. In fact, District 5 comprises about 70 percent of the landmass of Escambia County. A great distance must be traveled to get from Mr. Smith's business to most places in the district and from place to place in the district. Mr. Smith decided that it was more important to engage in person-to-person campaigning in his large district than to spend time doing the detailed work of learning the complexities of the election laws, complying with the laws, and submitting correct reports. Mr. Smith received the 2000 edition of the "Candidate Handbook on Campaign Financing," which was published by the Florida Department of State. He had previously received the 1996 handbook. He signed statements in 1995 and 1999 certifying that he had read and that he understood the material presented in the handbooks. His testimony that he did not read either of them is accepted as fact. Mr. Smith had worked on one of his own campaigns and on other campaigns and felt as though he already knew all he needed to know about election laws. He concluded that if he needed additional information, he could get it from staff in the Supervisor of Elections Office. Mr. Smith first filed as a candidate for the 2000 election on October 20, 1999. Subsequent to filing he received at least ten notices from the Supervisor of Elections Office that members of the office staff were available to advise him with regard to the rules governing elections. Mr. Smith's routine during the campaign was to work at his place of business in the morning and then to go to his district and conduct his campaign. He gave documentation recording contributions and expenditures to his elderly mother, a widow of 65 years. His mother kept notes on a legal pad and organized the documents so that they could be reported. Mr. Smith's mother had cancer, heart problems, and arthritis and this may have affected her accuracy in preparing reports. Mr. Smith was unaware of the serious nature of her illnesses during the time she was working on the campaign. Mr. Smith's mother died December 11, 2002. Mr. Smith's brother also helped with the campaign records. He was a schoolteacher, and each evening during the campaign he would help Mr. Smith. His brother died one week after Mr. Smith's electoral victory. Counts 1-4. Allegations involving Section 106.021(3) prohibiting expenditures from other than the campaign treasury (Counts 1-4). (Count 1). On October 10, 2000, Mr. Smith purchased stamps from the U. S. Post Office. A check in the amount of $495 was presented in payment. The check was drawn on the checking account of a company titled Environmentally Friendly Chemicals (EFC), of which Mr. Smith is a part owner. This occurred because Mr. Smith inadvertently picked up the EFC checkbook instead of the campaign checkbook. Mr. Smith's inattention was the cause of the error. The campaign subsequently reimbursed EFC. (Count 2). Campaign check 2088 was written to Frankie Peters in the amount of $50 to reimburse Ms. Peters who had paid for a sign at the Tate High School ballpark. Mr. Smith permitted this because the sign could not have been timely purchased if it had been paid with a check from the campaign treasury. (Count 3). Someone named Nacie Smith paid for postage in the amount of $150 on behalf of the campaign during October 2000. Campaign check number 2115 was used to reimburse Ms. Smith, and Mr. Smith signed this check. (Count 4). Mr. Smith had printing done for the campaign by a firm named Pengraphix pursuant to an order placed October 31, 2000. This order was placed immediately prior to the election. Part of the order was paid from the campaign account in the amount of $852.97. The balance was in dispute but was eventually compromised in the amount of $1,884.92. This amount was paid not from the campaign account, but rather, directly to Pengraphix by a friend named Donald "Mike" Murphy. The payment by Mr. Murphy was effected after the campaign had concluded. Mr. Murphy was a person to whom Mr. Smith had provided a loan several years prior to 2000. These four transactions are expenditures that were not paid from the campaign treasury. However, as will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law in more detail below, the accidental use of the EFC checkbook in Count 1, did not demonstrate willfulness. Count 5. Allegation involving Section 106.021(3) prohibiting a candidate from receiving contributions except through the campaign treasurer. This allegation is supported by the evidence recited above regarding Mr. Murphy, if one concludes that the money provided to Pengraphix represented a contribution as that term is defined in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Whether or not the facts support a finding that the cited statute prohibited this transaction is discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Counts 6-29. Allegations involving Section 106.05 requiring funds received to be deposited within five days of receipt. Mr. Smith reported 20 contributions on his Campaign Treasurer's Report (CTR), which covered the period October 20, 1999 through December 31, 1999. One of the contributions described by Mr. Smith as being a $500 check, was later reported, in an amended CTR, to be five separate $100 cash contributions. The campaign bank account was not opened until January 7, 2000, and the last contribution reported on the CTR was November 29, 1999. Therefore, 24 contributions were received but not deposited in the campaign account until more than five days subsequent to receipt. Mr. Smith was unaware of the statutory requirement that contributions must be deposited in the campaign treasury within five days of receipt. However, his willful ignorance of the requirement translates into willful violations. Counts 30-79. Allegations involving Section 106.07(5) prohibiting a candidate from certifying to the correctness of a campaign treasurer's report that is incorrect, false, or incomplete. Mr. Smith filed original CTRs for the following periods: (Count 30) October 20, 2000 to December 31, 1999. (Count 31) January 1, 2000 to March 31, 2000. (Count 32) April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000. d. (Count 33) July 1, 2000 to July 31, 2000. (Count 34) July 29, 2000 to August 11, 2000. (Count 35) August 12, 2000 to August 31, 2000. (Count 36) September 1, 2000 to September 8, 2000. (Count 37) September 9, 2000 to September 28, 2000. (Count 38) September 29, 2000 to October 13, 2000. (Count 39) October 14, 2000 to November 2, 2000. (Count 40) November 2, 2000 to December 31, 2000. He filed amended CTR's on January 12, 2000 (Count 41), April 19, 2000 (Count 42), and August 16, 2000 (Count 43). When a complaint that Mr. Smith had violated the laws governing campaign financing was filed against him in September 2001, he became motivated to try to correct CTR's that he had filed. He filed amended CTRs on September 24, 2001, October 18, 2001, April 2, 2002, April 24, 2002, and June 5, 2002 (Counts 44-79). He filed a total of 11 CTRs and 39 amendments. The parties stipulated, and it is found as a fact, that all of the original CTRs he filed, and all of the amendments he filed, were incomplete or incorrect. Mr. Smith worked diligently with Ms. Kowalchyk to correct the reports, once he discovered in September 2001, that he had been accused of wrongdoing. Ms. Kowalchyk worked on Mr. Smith's CTRs on her own time. Even Bonnie Jones, the Supervisor of Elections, attempted to correct his CTRs, but all were frustrated in the attempt. His reports were in complete disarray. Ms. Jones suggested in a letter dated October 8, 2001, that Mr. Smith refer this matter to his accountant, believing that an accountant might bring order to the chaotic records. He did not act on this advice. As noted above, Mr. Smith relied on his mother and his brother, and perhaps other family members to prepare accurate reports. Nevertheless, he was the campaign treasurer and he personally signed each CTR beneath bold face type which recited, "It is a first degree misdemeanor for any person to falsify a public record (ss.839.13 F.S.)" and despite the words over the signature line, where he placed his signature, which stated, "I certify that I have examined this report and it is true, correct and complete." It is specifically found that Mr. Smith's submission of incorrect CTRs was not motivated by an intention to hide any wrongdoing. His dereliction was due, rather, to a cavalier attitude with regard to complying with the technical aspects of the laws addressing campaign financing. This attitude continued until a complaint was filed. For reasons more fully explained in the Conclusions of Law, it is found as a fact that Mr. Smith is guilty of Counts 30-43, and not guilty of Counts 44-79. Counts 80-81. Allegations involving Section 106.11(3) prohibiting a candidate from incurring an expense for the purchase of goods or services without sufficient funds on deposit in the primary campaign depository. Although the Order of Probable Cause indicates that Mr. Smith was charged under Section 106.11(4), he should have been charged under Section 106.11(3) the Code in effect during the alleged misconduct. The wording of Section 106.11(4), Florida Statutes (2002), is identical to that found in Section 106.11(3). Because all parties understood the nature of the charge, the citation to a later version of the Florida Statutes does not mean that Mr. Smith may not be found to be in violation of it. Reference to the Statement of Findings reveals that the two counts alleged refer to services provided by Pengraphix, which is a printing house. The CTR for the period November 2, 2000 to December 31, 2000, reported two expenditures made to Pengraphix. One was for $864.49 and the other was for $1844.19, and both were reported on the CTR to have been made December 1, 2000. Subsequently, an amended CTR was filed September 24, 2001, which reported only an expenditure of $864.49 to Pengraphix. On June 5, 2002, in the fifth amendment to the termination CTR, Mr. Smith reported an expenditure on December 1, 2000, of an additional $1844.19, to Pengraphix. It is concluded from these reports that two obligations of $864.49 and $1844.19, for a total of $2708.68, were incurred in favor of Pengraphix. Because the bank records of the campaign account subsequent to December 1, 2000, reflect no expenditure in either individual amount, or in the aggregate amount, it may be concluded that the debt was not paid from the campaign account at all. The bank statement for the campaign treasury for the months of December 2000 and January 2001 never had a balance greater than $613.97 in it, so there was no money available from that source to pay the two expenditures. Mr. Smith addressed the foregoing by stating that there was a disputed bill from Pengraphix in the amount of about $2,600, and that he spent almost three months attempting to reach a settlement. The amount was compromised at $1,850. Mr. Smith further stated that when the printing was ordered the cost was not revealed. It must be concluded that until the amount was liquidated, Mr. Smith could not pay the bill. However, Mr. Smith must have known by December 1, 2000, that the liquidated amounts for the two jobs were $864.49 and $1844.19. At the time the jobs were ordered, which cannot be determined from the evidence, funds sufficient to pay the invoices may have been available. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate with any certainty that the funds were not available. Accordingly, is not found by clear and convincing evidence that the money due and owing Pengraphix was not available in the campaign treasury at the time the debt was incurred. Accordingly, Mr. Smith is not guilty of Counts 80 and 81. Counts 82-83. Allegations involving Section 106.11(3), requiring a candidate to pay for previously incurred expenses for the purchase of goods and services upon delivery and acceptance of the goods and services. Reference to the Statement of Findings reveals that these two counts address the two orders for printed matter placed at Pengraphix. It is clear that these purchases were not paid at the time of delivery and acceptance. However, the proof adduced at the hearing failed to demonstrate when the amounts were liquidated. It is clear, however, that at some point prior to December 1, 2000, the amounts were known, or at least discoverable, and therefore payable. It is found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Smith violated the charged portion of Section 106.11(3). Accordingly, he is guilty of Counts 82-83. Count 84. Allegation involving Section 106.141(1) condemning the failure of a candidate to properly dispose of surplus campaign funds subsequent to being elected. The general election that resulted in Mr. White's victory was held November 7, 2000. The ending balance shown on the campaign treasury bank statement on November 30, 2000, was $613.97. The ending balance shown on the campaign treasury bank statement on December 29, 2000, was $597.97. The ending balance shown on the campaign treasury bank statement on January 31, 2001, was $4.78. The imposition of bank fees on February 9, 2001, resulted in a zero balance in the account that was reflected on the February 2001 statement. The ninetieth day following Mr. Smith's election was February 5, 2001. Though de minimis, a violation of the statute occurred, and he is guilty of Count 84. Counts 85-87. Allegations involving Section 106.141(1) prohibiting a candidate from accepting a contribution subsequent to being elected. Bank records of the campaign treasury indicate that a deposit to the account was made on January 2, 2001, in the amount of $187, and on January 3, 2001, in the amount of $100, almost two months after the election. An amendment to the CTR for the period November 2, 2000 to December 31, 2000, which was filed April 24, 2002, indicates that the candidate loaned the campaign $287. Mr. Smith explained that the two deposits were made so that a campaign debt could be paid. The sum of the two contributions plus the amount remaining in the account, $597.97, totaled $884.97 that was sufficient to cover a check for $864.19, which was, in Mr. Smith's words, ". . .payment of the substantial debt, $864.19." To what substantial debt he refers cannot be determined from the evidence of record but it is within 30 cents of the amount of the smaller of the two Pengraphix amounts reported as expenditures on December 1, 2000. In January 2001, a sum of money remained to be paid to Pengraphix. As noted above, this debt was compromised in the amount of $1,850. Mr. Smith did not have personal funds available to pay that amount, or money in the campaign treasury sufficient to pay that amount, so he prevailed upon his friend, Mr. Murphy, to pay the amount for him, and promised to repay Mr. Murphy with interest. Mr. Murphy did in fact pay Pengraphix $1884.92 to settle the debt owed by Mr. Smith. The difference between $1850 and the $1884.92 actually paid, most likely represents accrued interest. This payment was made, according to the Stipulation, on January 11, 2001. Mr. Smith repaid Mr. Murphy, by check in February 2002 in the amount of $1990. The exact day in February was not written on the date line on the check, but it cleared the bank on February 25, 2002. Whether or not these allegations of Counts 85-87 are supported by the cited statute, will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Count 88. Allegation involving Section 106.19(1)(a), prohibiting a candidate from accepting a contribution in excess of $500. This count addresses the payment by Mr. Murphy to Pengraphix discussed above. Whether or not the cited statute supports these allegations will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Count 89. Allegation involving Section 106.19(1)(b), condemning the failure of a candidate to report a contribution. This count addresses the payment by Mr. Murphy to Pengraphix discussed above. The transaction was not reported on any CTR with Mr. Murphy's name connected to it. Whether or not the cited statute supports these allegations will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Count 90. Allegation involving Section 106.19(1)(c), condemning the failure of a candidate to report a contribution. This count addresses the payment by Mr. Murphy to Pengraphix discussed above. The transaction was not reported on any CTR. Whether or not these allegations are supported by the cited statute will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Counts 91-94. Allegations involving Section 106.19(1)(d), prohibiting a candidate from making an expenditure prohibited by Chapter 106. These counts address the same facts pertinent to the events discussed in paragraphs 11-15, above. These facts support three violations of Section 106.021(3), as well as the three violations of Section 106.19(1)(d), as alleged. They are, however, multiplicious with three of the allegations recited as Counts 2-4. Mr. Smith's assets. Mr. Smith reported a net worth of $707,609, on his "Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests 1999." He testified that as a result of criminal charges and the current litigation, his net worth has decreased since 1999. He currently owns two parcels of real property worth more than $200,000 that is subject to mortgages in an unknown amount. He owns several vehicles including a 1995 Chevrolet Tahoe that he drives, and a new Chevrolet Yukon that his wife drives. He also owns a tow truck that is used in his business. His net worth cannot be determined by the evidence before the Administrative Law Judge. However, it is determined that he is not impecunious.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds that Mr. Smith committed 44 of the violations alleged in the Order of Probable Cause and that he should be assessed a civil penalty of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 25th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert R. Kimmel, Esquire Kimmel & Batson Post Office Box 12266 Pensacola, Florida 32581-2266 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street The Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street The Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Ruching, Clerk Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Respondent has incurred and failed to pay Petitioner's surcharge tax in the amount of $12,746.97, including statutory interest and statutory penalty, in violation of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-4.063(8).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses' demeanor while testifying, character of the testimony, internal consistency, and recall ability; documentary materials received in evidence; stipulations by the parties; and evidentiary rulings during the proceedings, the following relevant and material facts are determined: Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the beverage law in Florida. Chapters 561 through 568, Florida Statutes (2005). In this disciplinary action, the Division seeks to impose sanctions on the license of Respondent, Beer: 30 Grill & Pub, Inc., d/b/a Beer: 30 Grill & Pub, on the grounds that Respondent failed to pay to the State of Florida the surcharge tax owed for on- premise sales of alcoholic beverages made during the period February 2000 through March 2003. Respondent denied the charge and requested a final hearing to contest this allegation. Respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Division, having been issued beverage license number 69- 02225, 4-COP, by the Division. That license allows Respondent to make sales of beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on premises at the restaurant located at 1602 West Airport Boulevard, Sanford, Florida 32771. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, by its corporate officer John Aitcheson, applied for and was holding license number 69-02225, 4-COP. In Florida, a licensee must keep records of all purchases and other acquisitions and sales of alcoholic beverages for a period of three years to comply with Section 561.501, Florida Statutes (2005). This requirement applies to any beverage license holder in Florida. In addition to selling alcoholic beverages for on- premise consumption, Respondent also sells packaged alcoholic beverage for off-site consumption. Surcharge tax in the amount of $0.14 per gallon of beer, $1.07 per gallon of wine, and $4.28 per gallon of liquor is assessed for each and every drink sold by Respondent for on- premise consumption, but no such surcharge tax is owed for off- premise package sales. The surcharge tax is paid by the on-premise consumers (patrons) to the state, and the vendor only collects and remits this surcharge to the state. As a reward for their effort to timely report and remit the surcharge to the state, the vendors are allowed to keep monthly, as an allowance, one percent of the total surcharge owed for the alcoholic beverages sold during that month. Respondent testified that he has a very simple method of keeping sales records. He makes handwritten records of each and every off-premise sale and also collects and keeps the distributors' invoices for the purchase of his alcohol supplies. Every month, Respondent subtracts the off-premise sold alcoholic beverages from the total quantity bought as reflected by the invoices from distributors, obtaining through this indirect method the total on-premise sales. Then Respondent multiplies the resulting quantity of alcohol sold on-premise that month with the applicable tax rate, obtaining thus his surcharge liability for that particular month. Respondent provided the Division with handwritten off- premise sales records. With the exception of the records mentioned above, the Division does not have in the file any other records submitted by Respondent. As well, Respondent did not offer any evidence to substantiate his claim that he indeed provided the Division with any additional records. However, Respondent testified that he neither maintained on-premise sales records, as required by Section 561.501, Florida Statutes (2005), nor was he able at the hearing to offer any proof whatsoever that would corroborate his claim that during the audited period he actually made more off-premise sales than reflected in his handwritten records. To enforce the surcharge tax provisions, the Division performs periodic audits of all licensees who sell alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption. As part of the audit process, the Auditing Bureau of the Division requests and receives monthly reports from alcohol distributors detailing all the sales made by each distributor to each particular licensee. An exception to the automatic monthly distributor reporting procedure is made for the Schenk Company, a beer distributor, which reports its sales to different vendors only when expressly requested by the Division. After receiving all the sales data concerning a particular vendor from the distributors, the Auditing Bureau uses a computer program to calculate the gross surcharge liability of that particular licensee. Special deductions are then allowed for off-premise sales, employee drinks, etc. The burden is on the holder of the license to demonstrate that such person qualifies for a deduction by providing accurate records of off-premise sales, giving employee drinks, etc. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-4.063(4) - 61A-4.063(9). It is each licensee’s obligation to accurately report all on-premise monthly sales and to pay the tax collected from customers. There is a penalty and interest surcharge for late reporting and late paying. In addition to the penalty and interest mentioned above, the Division is statutorily required to assess interest and penalties for any underreporting and/or underpayment of the tax due for the period of the audit. If underreporting/underpayment penalties and interest are assessed, they are applied only to the period of the audit. No penalty or interest is applied to any period over the end of the audit. In the present case, the Auditing Bureau calculated Respondent’s surcharge liability based on the data provided by the distributors. The audit allowed Respondent deductions for all off-premise sales recorded in Respondent's handwritten off- premise sales records. At no material time did Respondent request any other deductions nor did he provide any evidence that he would be entitled to any other deductions. It is incumbent to Respondent to carefully keep records of all sales that would entitle him to receive deductions. The Division cannot allow surcharge tax deductions that are not corroborated by any records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-4.063(9). Moreover, Respondent did not even advance any amount of any additional deduction; his position being only that he should have been allowed more deductions because he made more off-premise sales. Absent evidence that more alcoholic beverages were sold off-premise than recorded in the records already taken into consideration by the audit, no additional deductions may be allowed to Respondent. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-4.063(9). The audit found that Respondent understated his tax reports and underpaid $7,433.66 in surcharge tax. For the failure to timely report and remit the entire surcharge tax due for the period February 1, 2000, through February 28, 2003, the Division assessed statutory interest of $1,693.85 and a statutory penalty of $3,619.46 for a total surcharge liability of $12,746.97.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order finding Respondent liable and ordering payment for the surcharge tax principal of $7,433.66, plus interest of $1,693.85 and a statutory penalty of $3,619.46 for a total surcharge liability of $12,746.97. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 24th day of January, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lydia Miller, ran for election to the Hillsborough County Commission, District 4, in 1992. It was her first campaign for election to public office. She declared her candidacy in September, 1991, and appointed her husband as her campaign treasurer and herself as deputy campaign treasurer. She ran as a Republican and had several Republican opponents in the primary. She did not have the backing of the Republican Party and had difficulty attracting financial support, especially at first. Of necessity, she ran a "grass roots" campaign and spent countless hours going door-to-door in her district asking for support and, when possible, making public appearances. She also tried to capitalize on the "grass roots" nature of her campaign. Trying to emulate a campaign technique that worked for Governor Lawton Chiles, she pledged that she would not accept financial contributions in excess of $100 (versus the $500 statutory maximum) and would not accept financial contributions (or endorsements) from "special interests." To substantiate the strength of her "grass roots" campaign, the Respondent saw value in her campaign treasurer's reports showing as large a number of relatively small contributions from individuals. In all, the Respondent raised less than $14,000. Yet, she was able to survive the first primary, win the second primary, and beat her Democrat opponent in the general election. Cash Not Deposited or Reported The Respondent admitted that she accepted a $20 cash contribution from Irene Herring and put it in her campaign's petty cash without reporting it in her campaign treasurer's reports. Herring made two other cash contributions to the Respondent's campaign- -one in the amount of $20 and another in the amount of $30. Neither contribution was reported. Both contributions were given to Susie Farmer, a campaign worker. Similarly, David Gill contributed between $50 and $100 cash to the Respondent's campaign, but the contribution was not reported. This contribution also was given to Susie Farmer. The Respondent denied specific knowledge of the two other cash contributions from Herring and the cash contribution from Gill. The only evidence which could support a finding that the Respondent knew of them was testimony of Larry Sweat, an aide the Respondent hired after her election but fired three months later. From an evaluation of the testimony of the Respondent and Sweat, taking into account all of the relevant evidence as well as their demeanor and overall credibility, and it is found that Sweat's testimony was not sufficient to overcome the Respondenet's denials by a preponderance of the evidence. By her own admission, however, it would not have been unusual for the Respondent to use small cash contributions (or allow and approve their use) to replenish her campaign's petty cash without reporting them in her campaign treasurer's reports. It certainly is possible that the other two cash contributions from Herring and the cash contribution from Gill were handled in that manner. The Respondent was aware that all contributions had to be deposited in her campaign account and reported in her campaign treasurer's report. Yet, for reasons not fully explained in her testimony, the Respondent also thought that it was permissible to use small cash contributions to replenish her campaign's petty cash. It is possible that the Respondent misread or misunderstood the election campaign financing laws dealing with petty cash and the reporting of expenditures from petty cash. See Conclusions of Law 79 through 81, below. The Respondent certainly was not handling the small cash contributions that way to "beef up" her campaign treasurer's reports. Cash Deposited and Reported But Donor Allegedly Unknown The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports show the following cash contributions: $100 from Phillip Preston on August 17, 1992 $ 90 from Robert Preston on August 17, 1992 $100 from Kelley Preston on August 22, 1992 Robert, Kelley, and Phillip are the minor children of Allen and Rosina Preston, aged 16, 4, and 2. It is possible but improbable that Robert donated $100 of his own cash to the Respondent's campaign; it is all but impossible that Kelley or Phillip did. The Prestons were supporters of the Respondent and contributors to her campaign. The Respondent's Sun City Center campaign headquarters was in office space donated by Allen Preston. The offices of Preston's business also was in the same building. Allen Preston often visited the campaign headquarters and helped with the campaign, in addition to his financial contributions. Yet, Preston denied donating $290 cash in the names of his children. Preston does not think his wife would have done so without telling him, but his wife did not testify. The Respondent denies any specific knowledge concerning the $290 in cash contributions attributed to the Preston children. But it would not have been unusual for Susie Farmer or other campaign workers to leave cash contributions with "Post-It" notes attached to identify the donors. The campaign treasurer's reports normally would be prepared using the information on the "Post-It" notes. Especially in the days leading up to the three elections, the campaign headquarters became hectic and confused, and it is possible that incorrect information inadvertently was placed on the "Post-It" notes for these cash contributions. When the Respondent saw cash contributions from the Preston children in preparing or reviewing reports, she would not have questioned the accuracy of the information. She would have assumed that the Prestons had made the donations in the names of their children. She did not think there was anything wrong with adults making campaign contributions in the names of their minor children. She denies intentionally misreporting the contributions in order to hide contributions from Allen and Rosina Preston, or their businesses, or artificially to "beef up" the number of small contributions reflected in her campaign treasurer's reports. The evidence was not sufficient to overcome the Respondenet's denials by a preponderance of the evidence. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports also show a $25 cash contribution from Evelyn Ackerman on October 14, 1992. The parties stipulated in their Joint Prehearing Stipulation that Ackerman is an elderly woman on a fixed income and that Ackerman denies making the contribution. But the Respondent has a specific recollection that Ackerman offered the contribution, that the Respondent tried to decline in view of Ackerman's meager financial means, and that Ackerman insisted. It is found that the Respondent's testimony outweighs the statements from Ackerman, who has been know to hallucinate and whose memory may not be trustworthy. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports also showed a $100 cash contribution from Henry Farmer on October 18, 1992. Henry Farmer denies making the contribution and does not believe that his wife, Susie, would have donated $100 cash in his name without telling him. Susie did not testify, but she was an enthusiastic supporter, campaign worker and fund-raiser for the Respondent's campaign, and it certainly is possible that she donated the cash in her husband's name without his knowing it. Regardless of the actual source of the cash, the Respondent testified to her recollection of seeing a $100 cash contribution with a "Post-It" notes attached indicating that it was from Henry Farmer. She indicated that she had no reason to think it was not a contribution from Susie's husband, and it would not have been unreasonable for the Respondent to believe, without question, that the information on the "Post-It" note was accurate. The evidence was not sufficient to overcome the Respondent's testimony by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent knew her campaign treasurer's report of the $100 cash contribution from Henry Farmer was not accurate. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports also showed a $100 cash contribution from Marie Schrag on October 18, 1992. Neither she nor her husband made the contributions. The Respondent did not testify to any specific recollection about the Schrag contribution. But Schrag was Allen Preston's bookkeeper and worked in the same building of Preston's where the Respondent's Sun City Center campaign headquarters was. Although she was not an active campaign worker for the Respondent, she did type one letter for the campaign, and her husband stuffed envelopes for the campaign on at least one occasion. In addition, she had been friends with Susie Farmer, one of the Respondent's most successful fund-raiser, for over 20 years. If the Respondent saw a $100 cash contribution with a "Post-It" notes attached indicating that it was from Marie Schrag, she would have had no reason not to believe, without question, that the information on the "Post-It" note was accurate. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent knew her campaign treasurer's report of the $100 cash contribution from Marie Schrag was not accurate. Alleged Business Contributions Allegedly Falsely Reported From Individuals The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a June 1, 1992, contribution in the amount of $25 from "Phil Boggs, Occupation (if over $100), Boggs Jewelry," when the check was written on the account of Boggs Jewelry, and signed by Phil R. Boggs. The Respondent reasonably did not think there was anything wrong with the way the Boggs contribution was reported. When the Respondent pledged not to take financial contributions or endorsements from "special interests," she did not intend to indicate that she would not accept financial support from any businesses or corporations. (In her mind, "special interests" meant political action committees, not any and all businesses and corporations.) The Respondent does not know Phil Boggs, and Boggs Jewelry had no business before the County Commission during the Respondent's term. The Respondent reasonably did not perceive the Boggs contribution to have come from a "special interest," and it was not proven that the Respondent was trying to hide the true source of the Boggs contribution or make it look like it was coming from Boggs, individually, instead of the business, Boggs Jewelry. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on June 2, 1992, in the amount of $25 from "Charles Hostetter, Occupation (if over $100), Fisher Beauty Salon," when the check was written on the account of Fisher's Beauty Salon, and signed by Charles Hostetter. The Respondent reasonably did not think there was anything wrong with the way the Hostetter contribution was reported. The Respondent reasonably did not perceive the Hostetter contribution to have come from a "special interest," and it was not proven that the Respondent was trying to hide the true source of the Hostetter contribution or make it look like it was coming from Hostetter, individually, instead of the business, Fisher's Beauty Salon. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on June 22, 1992, in the amount of $25 from "Charles Bingham, Occupation (if over $100), c/o Floral Decor Florist," when the check was written on the account of Floral Decor Florist, and signed by Charles Bingham. The Respondent reasonably did not think there was anything wrong with the way the Bingham contribution was reported. Bingham is a personal friend of the Respondent and personally gave the check to the Respondent. The Respondent reasonably did not perceive the Bingham contribution to have come from a "special interest," and it was not proven that the Respondent was trying to hide the true source of the Bingham contribution or make it look like it was coming from Bingham, individually, instead of the business, Floral Decor Florist. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on June 24, 1992, in the amount of $100 from "John Williams Coppes Kitchen, Occupation (if over $100), Owner," when the check was written on the account of Williams Kitchens & Baths, Inc. The Respondent reasonably did not think there was anything wrong with the way the John Williams contribution was reported. The Respondent knows Williams's business as "John Williams Coppes Kitchens," the name on the business's signage. (Coppes is the name of the brand Williams sells.) The Respondent reasonably did not perceive the John Williams contribution to have come from a "special interest," and it was not proven that the Respondent was trying to hide the true source of the John Williams contribution or make it look like it was coming from Williams, individually, instead of the business, whether known as Williams Kitchens & Baths, Inc., or as John Williams Coppes Kitchens. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on August 16, 1992, in the amount of $100 from "Ann Williams, Guys & Dolls," when the check was written on the account of Guys 'N Dolls of Brandon, Inc., and signed by Ann Williams. The Respondent reasonably did not think there was anything wrong with the way the Ann Williams contribution was reported. Ann Williams is the Respondent's regular hairdresser and personally gave the check to the Respondent at the beauty parlor. The Respondent reasonably did not perceive the Ann Williams contribution to have come from a "special interest," and it was not proven that the Respondent was trying to hide the true source of the Ann Williams contribution or make it look like it was coming from Ann Williams, individually, instead of the business, Guys 'N Dolls of Brandon, Inc. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on September 12, 1992, in the amount of $50 from "Martha Simmons, Tropical Fish Farms," when the check was written on the account of Gerald Simmons Tropical Fish Farm, and signed by Martha Simmons. The Respondent reasonably did not think there was anything wrong with the way the Simmons contribution was reported. The Simmonses were neighbors of the Farmers. The Respondent reasonably did not perceive the Simmons contribution to have come from a "special interest," and it was not proven that the Respondent was trying to hide the true source of the Simmons contribution or make it look like it was coming from Martha Simmons, individually, instead of the business, Gerald Simmons Tropical Fish Farm. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on September 23, 1992, in the amount of $50 from Tommy Brock, when the check was written on the account of Brock Farms, and signed by Tommy Brock. The Respondent reasonably did not think there was anything wrong with the way the Tommy Brock contribution was reported. The Respondent reasonably did not perceive the Brock contribution to have come from a "special interest," and it was not proven that the Respondent was trying to hide the true source of the Brock contribution or make it look like it was coming from Tommy Brock, individually, instead of the business, Brock Farms. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on October 15, 1992, in the amount of $100 from William Stearns, when the check was written on the account of F.E. Stearns Peat Co., Inc., and signed by William Stearns. If the Respondent had carefully compared check to the report, she probably should have known that the Stearns contribution was not reported properly. The check arrived in the mail, and there was no reason to think it was not from the F.E. Stearns Peat Co., Inc. Nonetheless, the Respondent reasonably did not perceive the Stearns contribution to have come from a "special interest," and it was not proven that the Respondent intentionally was trying to hide the true source of the Stearns contribution or make it look like it was coming from Williams Stearns, individually, instead of the business, F.E. Stearns Peat Co., Inc. It just as easily could have been a mistake or oversight. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on October 15, 1992, in the amount of $100 from "William Bishop, c/o L.L. Corporation," when the check was written on the account of Leslie Land Corporation, signed by William Bishop, with the "memo": "William L. Bishop." If she had carefully compared check to the report, the Respondent probably should have known that the Leslie Land Corporation contribution was not reported properly. However, the "memo" on the check indicated "William L. Bishop," and the report gave Bishop's address as "c/o L. L. Corporation." It was not proven that the Respondent intentionally was trying to hide the true source of the Leslie Land Corporation contribution or make it look like it was coming from William Bishop, individually, instead of the business, Leslie Land Corporation. It is just as possible that the intention was to include all of the information on the check for full disclosure and that the initials "L. L." were used instead of the full name of the Leslie Land Corporation by mistake or oversight, or to compress all of the information into the limited space allotted on the report form. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on October 22, 1992, in the amount of $100 from the "Bill Kincaid Company," when the check was written on the account of the Kincaid Company, and signed by William F. Kincaid. The Respondent reasonably did not think there was anything wrong with the way the Kincaid contribution was reported. All the report did was provide the additional information of Kincaid's first name, along with the company name. It was not proven that the Respondent was trying to hide the true source of the Kincaid contribution or make it look like it was coming from Kincaid, individually, instead of from the Kincaid Company. The Respondent also reasonably did not perceive the Kincaid contribution to have come from a "special interest." The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on October 29, 1992, in the amount of $50 from Kenneth Wetherington, when the check was written on the account of the Morgan and Wetherington Chiropractic, and signed by Kenneth Wetherington. The Respondent did not think there was anything wrong with the way the Wetherington contribution was reported. She thought that a chiropractor in partnership with other chiropractors acted in his own behalf when making a political contribution, even when writing a partnership check. Although the Respondent probably incorrectly reported this contribution, the Respondent reasonably did not perceive the Wetherington contribution to have come from a "special interest," and it was not proven that the Respondent intentionally was trying to hide the true source of the Wetherington contribution or make it look like it was not coming from the partnership of Morgan and Wetherington Chiropractic. The Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports listed a contribution on October 28, 1992, in the amount of $100 from Paul Rozeman, when the check was written on the account of the McCaw Communications of Florida, Inc., and signed by someone other than Rozeman. (The signature was illegible, and it could not be identified through testimony.) However, the check was delivered by Rozeman, who worked in McCaw's local office, and who introduced himself to the Respondent. Although McCaw Communications is a large corporation, the Respondent was not familiar with it and was willing to assume that the contribution was from Rozeman's company and to decided err on the side of using his name. Obviously, her assumption was incorrect, and the report was in error. In any event, the Respondent probably should have known that the contribution was not reported properly. (See Finding of Fact 36, above.) But the evidence did not prove that the Respondent was lying, and that she actually perceived McCaw Communications to be a "special interest," and intentionally was trying to hide the true source of the contribution and make it look like it was coming from Rozeman, individually, instead of from McCaw Communications. In all, the Respondent's campaign treasurer's reports that were admitted in evidence listed 216 separate contributions. ($3,052 in cash and check contributions and $1615.80 of in-kind contributions would have been listed in earlier reports that were not admitted in evidence.) Of the 216 separate contributions, 31 (aside from the ones discussed in paragraphs 15 through 43, above) unambiguously and properly listed the contributions as coming from corporations, businesses or organizations. Contributions Allegedly Over $100 And Falsely Reported As Several $100 Contributions On or about October 5, 1992, the Respondent's campaign received a $500 check on the account of, and signed by Allen Preston, with explicit instructions to consider it and report it as being a $100 contribution from each of the five family members: Allen; his wife, Rosina; and their three children, Robert, Kelley, and Phillip. On or about September 3, 1992, the Respondent's campaign received a $300 check on the account of Aquarius Water Refinery, Inc., and signed by Joe Gaskill, with explicit instructions to consider it and report it as being a $100 contribution from him, another $100 contribution from his wife, and another $100 contribution from his company, Aquarius Water Refinery, Inc. On or about September 3, 1992, the Respondent's campaign received a $200 check on the account of Care Animal Hospital, Inc., and signed by Richard Kane, a veterinarian and the corporation's president, with explicit instructions to consider it and report it as being one $100 contribution from him and another $100 contribution from his corporation. The Respondent did not specifically request that the Preston, Gaskill and Kane contributions be considered and reported as being several contributions of $100. Preston, Gaskill and Kane all were aware of the Respondent's campaign pledge to limit contributions to $100, and it was their desire and intention not to cause the Respondent to violate the pledge. The Respondent did not think it was improper or illegal or inaccurate to reports the Preston, Gaskill and Kane contributions as requested. It appears that the Petitioner has issued an advisory opinion that contributions in excess of the statutory maximum by check drawn on a joint account only can be divided into smaller contributions from more than one account holder if all of the donors sign the check. (The Petitioner's investigator testified to the existence of such an advisory opinion, but none was admitted in evidence at the hearing. The Petitioner attached to its proposed recommended order a copy of what purports to be its advisory opinion on the subject, designated DE 93-10, but technically the advisory opinion still is not in evidence in this case.) But there is no evidence that the advisory opinion was furnished to the Respondent or that she was aware of it. If the Respondent were aware of the advisory opinion, she should at least have been on notice to inquire whether it was permissible to report the contributions as she did. But it still would not have been clearly impermissible. Allegedly False Termination Report And Improper Disposition of Surplus Funds The deadline for submission of the Respondent's termination campaign treasurer's report was 90 days after the general election, or Monday, February 1, 1993. As the deadline approached, the Respondent reasonably thought she needed two things in order to file the termination report: first, the January, 1993, bank statement on the campaign account; and, second, the resolution of a dispute she had with the phone company (GTE of Florida, Inc., or GTE) about charges on bills she received after having the campaign headquarters phone disconnected. On the weekend before the termination report was due, the Respondent attempted to obtain the bank statement but was told that it just had been put in the mail and could not be regenerated by the bank's computer at that time. The bank personnel advised the Respondent to wait until the statement arrived in the mail. Without the bank statement, the Respondent reasonably could not prepare the termination report before the deadline. She asked officials at the local elections supervisor's office for advice and was told to write a note explaining the reasons why she could not meet the deadline. She wrote a note dated February 1, 1993, stating that she "could not report on the closing of my campaign account until I received the final Banking Statement." It is found that the note was truthful and that she did not have the January, 1993, bank statement at the time she wrote it. Testimony from Larry Sweat to the effect that the Respondent came into her office that day and gave him the bank statement to hide in a drawer is rejected as false or mistaken. The Respondent did not receive the bank statement in the mail until later that week. It is possible, as testified by Sweat, that he and the Respondent had a discussion to the effect that it was to the Respondent's advantage that her termination report would not be available for public scrutiny on the deadline, along with the reports of other candidates (assuming they were filed on time). But it is as likely, or more likely, that Sweat thought of the fortuitous side- benefit of filing late. In any event, it is found that the Respondent did not intentionally file late in order to reap the perceived side-benefit that might have been discussed. It is possible that, when the January, 1993, bank statement was received in the mail, the Respondent brought it into the office and gave it to Sweat to keep in his desk drawer until she was in a position to prepare the termination report. (The dispute with the telephone company still was not resolved.) But it is found that, contrary to Sweat's testimony, the Respondent did not give the bank statement to Sweat to "hide" in his desk drawer. On February 18, 1993, the Respondent filed the termination report. It showed a January 6, 1993, check on the campaign account (check number 1070) in the amount of $88.45, made out to cash. The check memo stated, "petty cash reimbursement," but the report clarified that the cash actually was paid to the Respondent and two others for the purchase of party goods for the celebration of the Respondent's victory in the general election. The February 18, 1993, termination report also showed that a February 16, 1993, check for $48.95 to GTE of Florida (check number 1072) "on account, balance due in dispute" was written on the campaign account on the day of the report. The report also showed a zero balance in the account. Check number 1072 never was presented to the bank, and its whereabouts is not known. The Petitioner contends that check number 1072 and the disputed telephone bill were fabrications to cover the improper disbursement of $48.95 of surplus to the Respondent. But the check just as easily could have been lost or, for some reason, simply not presented to the bank for payment. Besides, as reflected in the following Findings of Fact, the evidence was clear both that there was in fact a dispute regarding the GTE bill and that the $48.95 was not disbursed to the Respondent in February, 1993. The Petitioner presented the GTE telephone records for the Respondent's campaign office telephone account in an apparent attempt to prove that, as of November 10, 1992, there was only a $1.02 balance on the account and that GTE was not pursuing collection of the $1.02. But, while only a $1.02 balance appeared on the campaign telephone account as of November 10, 1992, approximately $154.68 was transferred at that time from the campaign telephone account to the Respondent's personal home telephone account. It was the transferred charges that the Respondent was disputing. For reasons not apparent from the record, on or about December 10, 1992, GTE reduced the balance transferred to the Respondent's home phone bill to $131.37. Apparently, GTE further reduced the transferred balance to $84.09 on December 19, 1992; again, no explanation for the further reduction is apparent. The $84.09 charge remained on the GTE records at least until an entry on one of the records indicating that GTE wrote it off as uncollectible on or about February 12, 1993. Although the records include the notation dated February 12, 1993, indicating that GTE was writing off the $84.09 charge as being uncollectible, the Petitioner did not call a witness from GTE to explain the GTE records, and the records presented at the hearing do not go beyond the February 12, 1993, entry. It is not clear from the records that GTE stopped soliciting payment of the charge at that time. On May 12, 1993, the Respondent filed an amended termination report showing a March 30, 1993, disbursement to the Respondent in the amount of $36.95 for reimbursement for partial payment of the campaign's GTE bill. It also attached a copy of the March 31, 1993, bank statement on the campaign account showing a beginning balance as of March 1, 1993, in the amount of $36.95 and one withdrawal/debit in the same amount during the month, for a zero balance at the end of the month. The Respondent testified that she paid the $84.09 charge in June, 1993. Unfortunately, the Respondent's testimony was not corroborated by any records. But the GTE records presented by the Petitioner did not go beyond February 12, 1993, and without testimony from a witness from GTE, they were insufficient to disprove the Respondent's contention that she paid the charge in June, 1993. If the June, 1993, payment date is correct, the amended termination report filed on or about May 12, 1993, would indicate that the Respondent disbursed the $36.95 balance of the campaign account (representing the $48.95 she thought she had paid to GTE on or about February 16, 1993, less a $12 bank service charge for February, 1993) to herself on or about March 30, 1993, believing that there still was a disputed $84.09 charge to GTE, and that she held the money pending resolution of the disputed charge. When she paid the GTE charge, she considered the March 30, 1993, disbursement to herself to be reimbursement for her payment of the GTE charge. The Respondent knew or should have known that it was improper to disburse surplus from the campaign account to herself, except to reimburse her own contributions to her campaign. But, according to the Respondent's testimony, she did not consider the $36.95 payment to herself to be "surplus" since she considered there to be an outstanding disputed liability to GTE.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order dismissing the charges against the Respondent, Lydia Miller. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 6th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6612 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is conclusion of law. 2.-3. Last two sentences, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last two sentences, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. (Rather, she complied with the donors' instructions as to the source of the donations and how to report them.) First sentence, rejected as argument. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the Respondent willfully filed false reports. As to Ackerman, rejected as not proven that the report was inaccurate. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven that he admitted his wife did not make the contribution. (He said it was possible that she made it but he does not think she did.) Second sentence, rejected as not proven as to Ackerman but otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Third sentence, rejected as not proven that she said Suzie Farmer was responsible; the Respondent admitted to handling the Ackerman contribution and testified that said that someone, quite possibly Farmer, attached an explanatory "Post-It" note to the other cash contributions. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Third, fifth and last sentences, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the Respondent willfully made false reports. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First, sixth penultimate and ultimate sentences, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is rejected as not proven. (A review shows that she usually followed Barr's advice although not in each and every case.) Penultimate sentence, rejected as not proven as to petty cash. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Third sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Penultimate and ultimate sentences, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First and last sentences, ejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First, sixth, seventh and eighth sentences, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven as to petty cash. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. Third paragraph, fourth sentence (that the small size of the individual alleged "masked" cash donations makes the allegation "absurd"), rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The point of the Petitioner's argument that a single fairly large cash contribution--which could have been in addition to reported contributions--could have been "masked" by fabricating many small cash contribution.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. Second paragraph, first sentence (that the dispute concerned check #1072), rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Third paragraph, first sentence, rejected in part (omission of January, 1993, bank statement as a cause of initial delay) as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and in part (the Respondent's first campaign and the amounts involved) as irrelevant on the issue whether she willfully violated the law. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Westcott, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State, Division of Elections The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ralph C. Stoddard, Esquire Hampton, Stoddard, Griffin & Runnells 915 Oakfield Drive, Suite F Brandon, Florida 33511 Carlos Alvarez, Chairman Florida Elections Commission Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner, a not-for- profit organization is entitled to a refund of taxes collected and paid to Respondent pursuant to the exemption provision of Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the Petitioner's witness, the arguments of counsel and Respondent's brief submitted on June 5, 1979, the following relevant facts are found. The Petitioner, Miami Civic Music Association, is seeking a refund of taxes collected and paid prior to October 1, 1978, on the sale of membership fees. The Petitioner obtained a certificate qualifying it as a not-for-profit organization from the United States Internal Revenue Service since approximately 1945. This status has been submitted to Respondent. Prior to October 1, 1978, Petitioner submitted to Respondent approximately $1,602.33 based on the sale of membership dues received for musical performances which were to he held subsequent to October 1, 1978, i.e., October 25, 1978 through April, 1979. Petitioner bases its refund claim on the fact that the actual concert series which gave rise to the ticket sales occurred after October 1, 1978. Respondent's position is that the Petitioner is not entitled to a refund, first, on the ground that the tax collections for which the refund is being sought were collected prior to October 1, 1978, and therefore not properly refundable under the exemption provision of Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes. Secondly, Respondent contends that Petitioner is without standing to seek a refund since the sales tax applicable to admission charges purportedly collected must first be refunded to the respective subscribers which the Petitioner has not done in this case. Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, provides: No tax shall be levied on dues, membership fees, and admission charges imposed by not- for-profit sponsoring organizations or community or recreational facilities. To receive this exemption, the sponsoring organization or facility must qualify as a not-for-profit entity under the provisions of s. 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Cede of 1954, as amended. This exemption became effective October, 1978. The membership fees here in question were sold by Petitioner prior to October 1, 1978, and taxes were collected and remitted to the Department of Revenue. An examination of the legislative intent embodied in Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, reveals that each and every admission is taxed unless specifically exempted. (Subsection 212.21(3), Florida Statutes.) Inasmuch as there was no statutory exemption for Petitioner's organization prior to October 1, 1975, and based on the fundamental rule of statutory construction to the effect that a statute operates prospectively unless the intent is clearly expressed that it operates retrospectively. State, Department of Revenue v. Zuckerman-Vernon Corporation (Florida 1977) 354 So.2d 353. Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, reveals no legislative intent that this amendment was to be applied retrospectively. Finally, since an admissions tax like sales taxes, are collected on behalf of the State by the operator, it is in effect a form of excise tax upon the customer for exercising his privilege of purchasing the admission, the Petitioner herein lacks standing inasmuch as it did not pay the taxes, but merely remitted to the Department of Revenue the tax which was paid by subscribers of the memberships from the organization. See, for example, Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 101 So.2d 775 (Florida 1958) and State ex rel Szabo Food Services, Inc. of N.C. v. Dickinson, 250 So.2d 529 (Florida 1973). In this case, in the absence of the Petitioner showing that it was the party entitled to a refund of the taxes herein based on a claim of either an overpayment, a payment where no tax was due or a payment erroneously made, Petitioner failed to advance a basis upon which its claim can be granted. Section 215.26, Florida Statutes. For these reasons, I shall recommend that the Petitioner's claim for a refund herein be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's claim for a refund herein be DENIED. ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Wakefield, Esquire Hedges, Gossett, McDonald & wakefield 3325 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 305 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Linda C. Procta, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, as campaign treasurer, signed two checks drawn on the candidate's primary campaign account when such account lacked sufficient funds to cover the checks and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a certified public accountant since 1996. Since 2000, Respondent has been employed with a Hollywood, Florida accounting firm, where he is now a partner. Respondent has been licensed since 1996 to practice accounting in Florida. Sometime prior to June 2005, a friend of Respondent told him that a candidate for office in Miami needed help with his campaign. Respondent agreed to meet with the candidate, Richard Dunn, who was running for the District 5 seat on the City of Miami Commission. At the meeting, Respondent became acquainted with Mr. Dunn, who is a minister and an experienced candidate for public office. During the meeting, Mr. Dunn asked Respondent to serve as his campaign treasurer. Mr. Dunn explained that his main duty would be to maintain the campaign checkbook and make deposits of campaign contributions. Respondent also understood that he would have to attend some fundraising events. Respondent had never previously served as a campaign treasurer, but the parties agreed upon a satisfactory payment, and Respondent assumed his duties as campaign treasurer in July 2005. When Respondent started as treasurer, Mr. Dunn's campaign staff gave him checkbooks and deposit slips. At no time did Respondent ever investigate whether the election laws imposed upon him any special requirements. No one on Mr. Dunn's campaign staff gave Respondent a copy of the explanatory campaign materials provided each campaign by the Clerk's Office of the City of Miami. These materials include all relevant campaign finance laws. Respondent's lack of familiarity with the duties of a campaign treasurer emerged early. He learned that he had to file campaign treasurer reports when campaign staff informed him of this responsibility. At the same time, Respondent learned that campaign staff, including Mr. Dunn, were not careful in the management of the campaign's finances. In trying to prepare his first report, Respondent had problems obtaining all of the necessary information, such as all of the checks that had been written. Despite his lack of familiarity with campaign finance laws, Respondent knew that he could not write a check if an account had insufficient funds. Respondent assumed (wrongly, as noted below in the Conclusions of Law) that he could sign a check, even if the account lacked funds to cover it, as long as sufficient funds would be deposited before the check was presented for payment at the payor's bank. Respondent was not the first campaign treasurer for this campaign. However, the existence of a prior treasurer did not make it any easier for Respondent to assemble the necessary documents, such as copies of bank statements, so that he could do his job. Also, 30-45 days after taking over as treasurer, Respondent learned that the campaign maintained at least one other checking account. In short order, Respondent learned that the bank mailed the statements to Mr. Dunn, not the treasurer. Respondent suggested to Mr. Dunn that the bank issue a copy to Respondent. Mr. Dunn agreed with this proposal, but the bank, Wachovia Bank, said that it could not do so. Respondent never suggested to Mr. Dunn that he direct the bank to mail the statements to Respondent, who would then send a copy to Mr. Dunn. Quickly, Respondent also learned that Mr. Dunn was writing most of the checks, including counter checks. Respondent repeatedly impressed upon Mr. Dunn the importance of keeping Respondent informed about these checks, but Mr. Dunn and his campaign staff did not routinely do so. After failing to convince Mr. Dunn to restrict check- issuing privileges to Respondent, Respondent prepared a check authorization form that Mr. Dunn and his campaign staff could use each time that they issued checks. However, despite all of these efforts, consisting of five to ten telephone calls and meetings, Respondent never succeeded in obtaining Mr. Dunn's cooperation for very long. On the 10-15 occasions that Respondent wrote and signed campaign checks, he often, but not invariably, contacted the bank and asked it to fax transaction reports or partial statements to cover a specific date range. On those 10-15 occasions, Respondent often, but not invariably, called Mr. Dunn for confirmation of deposits before writing. If Respondent ever attempted to obtain this information by online banking, he never so indicated during the hearing. Although Respondent did something to update himself on current activity in the checking account each time that he had to write and sign a check, his information was necessarily incomplete. Overall, Respondent admits that he never was able to get the accounting problem within the campaign under control. Although Respondent wrote and signed relatively few checks, he wrote and signed the two checks at issue in this case many months after discovering the problems described above. On October 27, 2005, Respondent signed a check to The Miami Times for $3625.63 and drawn on the campaign account. Account balances were $542.34, $792.34, and $1892.34 on October 26, 27, and 28, 2005, respectively. Clearly, Respondent signed this check at a time that the account lacked sufficient funds to cover it. Respondent delivered the $3625.63 check to a member of the Dunn campaign and instructed her to ensure that the account had sufficient money before giving it to the payee. He added that she should deliver the check only to Mr. Dunn. On the same day, Mr. Dunn signed a check drawn on the same account in the amount of $500 and payable to the prior campaign treasurer, Johnny Studstill. Although the October bank records reveal no insufficient funds fees, the November bank records reveal seven instances of insufficient funds: November 10, 21, 22, and 30 (four times). Respondent explained that the bank imposed these fees because deposits had not yet cleared, but the imposition of these fees was sufficient to alert Respondent to mounting problems, and two of these instances had arisen prior to the date on which he signed the November 22 check, which is the second check at issue in this case. On November 22, 2005, Respondent signed a check to radio station WMBM for $2000 and drawn on the campaign account. Account balances were $694.25, $2909.25, and $6091.84, on November 21, 22, and 23, 2005, respectively. The relevant day is November 22, so it would appear that the bank balance was sufficient to cover this check. However, on the same day, Respondent signed checks in the amounts of $1065 and $1492.65 and payable to ASAP Mailing Service and Dodd Printing, although the latter check was marked void shortly after Respondent signed it. Thus, the total of the $2000 check to WMBM and $1065 check to ASAP (counsel for Petitioner conceding at the hearing that a voided check should not count) exceeded the account balance of $2909.25. On the same day, Mr. Dunn signed three checks drawn on the same account. One was in the amount of $850 and payable to radio station WEDR, one was in the amount of $185 and payable to Isaiah Walker, and the third was in the amount of $2000 and payable to radio station WHQT. About three weeks prior to the end of the campaign, Respondent realized that the situation was unworkable, even though his administrative assistant at the accounting firm was devoting 20 hours weekly to campaign-related bookkeeping work. Respondent remained with the campaign only to avoid the negative appearance that would be created by his leaving his post in the days running up to the election. Respondent asked Mr. Dunn not to leave him "high and dry," but Respondent was never paid for his services to the campaign, beyond a single $1000 check to cover costs. When signing the October 27 check, Respondent knew that, due to the campaign's poor financial management practices, he lacked even the information to determine whether the account balance would be sufficient when the check was presented to Wachovia. He did not consider whether the account balance was sufficient when he signed the check because he was not aware of this requirement of law. Respondent's violation of law was willful when signing the October 27 check. By this time, Respondent had been serving as campaign treasurer for nearly four months. He was increasingly aware that he did not have the full cooperation of the candidate. Although he did not know the relevant requirement of law, Respondent recklessly disregarded this requirement because he had never made any effort--let alone a reasonable effort--to inform himself of this legal requirement. The circumstances likewise establish recklessness in the signing of the November 22 check. Factually, Respondent's acts and omissions on November 22 were less defensible because the account had twice incurred insufficient-funds fees in the two weeks preceding the signing of the November 22 check, and he had another month to see that Mr. Dunn and the campaign staff would not agree to reasonable financial-management controls. Legally, Respondent's ongoing failure to inform himself of the applicable legal requirements imposed upon him as a campaign treasurer remained entirely unreasonable, with the passing of another month, the incurring of insufficient-funds fees, and the repeated confirming that Respondent would not have any significant cooperation from Mr. Dunn as his campaign approached its completion. The key factual determination in this case is that Respondent willfully violated the legal requirement that sufficient funds be in the account when the checks were signed. Respondent was understandably unfamiliar with this requirement, which is different from the more common requirement, with which he was familiar, that sufficient funds must be available when a check is presented to the issuing bank for payment. The requisite finding of Respondent's recklessness in failing to exercise any apparent effort to inform himself of this requirement of law is facilitated by the manner in which he handled the more common responsibilities of bookkeeping. Respondent proceeded recklessly in this area, as well. Respondent knew that the probability of bounced checks elevated considerably, the longer that more than one person wrote checks and the campaign staff was so lax in getting him the information on their activity in the account. Reckless disregard for the proper discharge of basic bookkeeping responsibilities is evidence of Respondent's overall state of mind at the relevant time. If Respondent did not initially realize his ignorance of campaign finance laws, he had to understand the limits of his knowledge when campaign staff told him he had to file campaign treasurer reports. By not informing himself of Section 106.11(4), Florida Statutes, by the time that he signed the two checks that are the subject of this case, Respondent displayed reckless disregard of his legal obligations. Under the law set forth below, Respondent's reckless disregard of the law constitutes a willful violation of the law. Here, Respondent, an accountant, has wholly disregarded Section 106.11(4), Florida Statutes, without making any reasonable inquiry into the limitations on check signing in a campaign.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of two counts of violating Section 106.11(4), Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 21st day of August, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Post Office Box 15579 Tallahassee, Florida 32317
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from sales and use tax as a religious or charitable organization.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Consumer Certificate of Exemption dated March 17, 1992, Petitioner requested a sales tax exemption as a religious organization. The application indicates that Petitioner was incorporated on February 18, 1992. At all times, the president of Petitioner has been Reverend Robert M. Rinaldi. By letter dated April 16, 1992, Respondent requested that Petitioner supply information concerning its primary purpose, including a list of all activities or services and to whom they are generally offered. The letter also requested, among other things, statements of receipts and expenditures and a copy of the letter determining that Petitioner is exempt from federal income tax. Petitioner submitted to Respondent evidence of 12 expenditures during the quarter ending March 31, 1992. The expenditures and their descriptions are as follows: Morrisons-- dinner business; Holiday Inn in Tampa--lodging for quarterly convention; Maas Brother in Naples--attire; Marshalls-- personal; Martha's Health Food Shop--personal; Things Remembered--card case/business cards; RJ Cafe Tropical--lunch interview; Beach Works Marco Island--attire; annual membership fee for vice president's American Express card; Las Vegas Discount golf and tennis in Naples--personal; Eckerd's Vision Works--medical eyeglasses; Quality Inn Golf Country Club in Naples--lodging during business travel; Avon Fashions/Hampton-- personal; Del Wright in Sarasota--automobile expenses and travel; JC Penney--personal; Amador's Restaurant in Naples-- dinner/lunch; Avon Fashions/Hampton--personal; annual membership fee for treasurer's American Express card; and Mobil Oil--business travel. Petitioner produced other evidence of similar types of expenditures, such as for fitness center fees, car insurance, car service, car payments, utilities, and rent. Nothing in the record links these expenditures to religious or charitable activities. There were expenditures for printing religious tracts and self- improvement educational materials, but they do not appear to be a substantial part of the total expenditures of Petitioner during the time in question. After receiving these materials, a representative of Respondent telephoned Reverend Rinaldi and stated that Petitioner would have to submit additional documentation of its income and expenses and formal affiliation with prison chapels where Petitioner reportedly conducted outreach programs. Respondent's representative also asked for evidence of Reverend Rinaldi's counselling credentials. Petitioner next submitted a copy of a letter from the Department of Treasury determining that Petitioner was exempt from federal income tax. Petitioner also submitted a budget for the year ending 1992 and a proposed budget for the year ending 1993. However, the budgets did not document a charitable purpose. The budget reveals that the largest disbursement was $4200, which was rent for an office and living quarters. The largest single receipt was $1764.27, which was a contribution from the incorporator, who was Rev. Rinaldi. There were no charitable receipts, such as from contributions from members, the public, or anonymous sources. On November 10, 1992, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner requesting additional information, including statements of the primary purpose of the organization and of receipts and expenditures. The request asked for a description or explanation for each charity-related program expenditure. On November 18, 1992, Petitioner submitted a second Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption. The information was essentially unchanged from the first application. Rev. Rinaldi also sent Respondent a religious flyer. On February 10, 1993, Petitioner submitted a third Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption. The material was essentially unchanged from the preceding two applications. On March 30, 1993, one of Respondent's representatives sent a letter to Petitioner stating that Petitioner does not meet the criteria for exemption from sales tax. In response, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent received April 8, 1993, requesting reconsideration of the denial. On May 4, 1993, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter stating that, as indicated during an earlier telephone conversation, Respondent had not yet received sufficient documentation to justify a sales tax exemption. Following up on Rev. Rinaldi's opinion that Petitioner qualified as a charitable organization, the letter suggests that he submit materials describing each charitable service or activity, the types of persons receiving such services, the frequency that the services are offered, the demonstrated benefit provided by Petitioner to disadvantaged persons, the fees charged by Petitioner, and the availability of Petitioner's services at the same or less cost elsewhere. The letter also asks for a statement of income and expenses. In response, Petitioner filed a fourth Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption on November 10, 1993. Rev. Rinaldi explained Petitioner's activities as informing people of the truth and the second coming of Jesus Christ and stopping addictions to drugs and alcohol. The enclosed materials included a church telephone number. The materials state that services are available 24 hours a day for no fees and are provided solely for the spiritual preparation of humanity. The materials also indicate several addresses at which religious activities are conducted. Upon investigation, Respondent learned that Petitioner's telephone number had been disconnected, the street address is Rev. Rinaldi's apartment, and the addresses at which religious activities are conducted are locations of Alcoholic Anonymous, from which Rev. Rinaldi and his church had been barred as public disturbances. Checking with the post office, the investigator learned that all mail for Rev. Rinaldi and Petitioner is being forwarded to an address in New York. Respondent asked for more information, and Petitioner supplied information no different than that previously supplied. By letter dated April 26, 1994, Respondent informed Petitioner that its application was denied. Following another exchange of correspondence, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny dated June 17, 1994. The Notice of Intent to Deny states that Respondent determined that: [Petitioner] travels from church to church and does not assemble regularly at a particular established location. [Petitioner] conducts services for short periods of time at numerous temporary locations. [Respondent] has reviewed your application and supporting documents and has determined that the primary purpose of your organization fails to meet the qualifications for sales tax exemption authorized by Section 212.08(7), Florida Statutes. By letter dated June 24, 1994, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on its application for sales tax exemption. Petitioner does not regularly conduct services. Petitioner does not engage in other religious activities nor does Petitioner provide services typically associated with a church. Petitioner has no established physical place for worship. Petitioner has generalized plans to construct one or more places for worship. However, these plans are post-apocalyptic in nature and thus do not assure the commencement of construction in the immediate future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption certificate from sales and use tax. ENTERED on December 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 20, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Rev. Robert Rinaldi P.O. Box 1081 167 N. Collier Blvd. J-3 Marco Island, FL 33937-1081 Attorney Lisa M. Raleigh Office of the Attorney General The Capitol--Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Revenue’s (Department) January 27, 2020, Notice of Proposed Assessment to Petitioner B Century 21, Inc. (B Century 21) is incorrect.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida’s sales and use tax laws, pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. B Century 21 is a Florida S-Corporation that operates two liquor stores (Al’s Liquor and Arlington Liquor), as well as a bar (Overtime Sports Bar), in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Altheeb is the sole owner of B Century 21 and testified that he is solely responsible for the operation of it, including the two liquor stores and bar. With respect to the operation of B Century 21, Mr. Altheeb testified, “I do all the paperwork, all the books, all the taxes. I do all the orders.” Matters Deemed Admitted and Conclusively Established2 B Century 21 received correspondence from the Department, dated August 20, 2019. That correspondence, from Ms. Pitre, stated, in part, “I will be conducting an examination of your books and records as authorized under Section 213.34, Florida Statutes.” B Century 21 received the Department’s form DR840, Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records, dated August 20, 2019, including the Sales and Use Tax Information Checklist. The form DR-840 indicated that the Department intended to audit B Century 21 for a tax compliance audit for the period of July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2019. The Sales and Use Tax Information Checklist listed a number of categories of documents the Department intended to review as part of this audit. B Century 21 (through its accountant, power of attorney, and qualified representative, Mr. Isaac) received the Department’s October 30, 2019, correspondence, which referenced the “Audit Scope and Audit Commencement,” and an attached Records Request list. B Century 21 (through Mr. Isaac) received an email, dated October 30, 2019, from Ms. Pitre. That email references an attached Audit Commencement Letter. B Century 21 (through Mr. Isaac) received an email, dated November 12, 2019, from Ms. Pitre, which inquired of “the status of the records requested during the meeting with you and Mr. Altheeb on October 29, 2019.” B Century 21 (through Mr. Isaac) received the Department’s Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, form DR-1215, dated December 16, 2019. The form DR-1215 reflects a total amount of tax of $170,232.93, a penalty of $42,558.24, and interest through December 16, 2019, of $25,461.86, for a total deficiency of $238,253.04. The form DR-1215 also reflects that if B Century 2 See Order Granting Motion Declaring Matters Admitted and Setting Discovery Deadline. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370(b). 21 did not agree with these audit changes, or only agreed with a portion, that it had until January 15, 2020, to request a conference or submit a written request for an extension. Further, the form DR-1215 attached a Notice of Taxpayer Rights, which included additional detail on the options available to B Century 21. B Century 21 (through Mr. Isaac) received correspondence from Ms. Pitre, dated December 16, 2019, which stated that as of the date of the correspondence, the Department had not received the information previously requested on October 13, 2019, which it needed to complete the audit. The correspondence stated that B Century 21 had 30 days to review the audit changes, provided contact information to B Century 21 if it wished to discuss the findings in the form DR-1215, and noted that if the Department did not hear from B Century 21 within 30 days, it would send the audit file to the Department’s headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. B Century 21 (through Mr. Isaac) received the Department’s Notice of Proposed Assessment, form DR-831, dated January 27, 2020. The form DR- 831 reflects a total amount of tax of $170,232.93, a penalty of $42,558.24, and interest through January 27, 2020, of $27,224.82, for a total deficiency of $240,016.00. For the time period between August 20, 2019, and January 7, 2021, B Century 21 did not provide the Department with: (a) any sales records; (b) any purchase records; or (c) any federal tax returns. For the time period between August 20, 2019, and January 7, 2021, B Century 21 did not provide any records to the Department for examination in conducting the audit. Additional Facts In 2011, for the purpose of enforcing the collection of sales tax on retail sales, the Florida Legislature enacted section 212.133, Florida Statutes, which requires every wholesale seller (wholesaler) of alcoholic beverage and tobacco products (ABT) to annually file information reports of its product sales to any retailer in Florida. See § 212.133(1)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat. Once a year, ABT wholesalers report to the State of Florida their name, beverage license or tobacco permit number, along with each Florida retailer with which they do business, the Florida retailer’s name, retailer’s beverage license or tobacco permit number, retailer’s address, the general items sold, and sales per month. See § 212.133(3), Fla. Stat. The information collected captures the 12-month period between July 1 and June 30, and is due annually, on July 1, for the preceding 12-month period. Id. ABT wholesalers file these reports electronically through the Department’s efiling website and secure file transfer protocol established through the Department’s efiling provider. § 212.133(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Baker explained this statutory process further: [W]e annually, every year in the month of May, my unit reaches out to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations. We compel them to give us a list of all of the active wholesalers who were licensed to sell to retailers in the state of Florida for the prior fiscal year. Once we receive that list, we then mail a notification to all those wholesalers and state the statute and the requirements and give them a user name and a password that will allow them to then log into that portal and submit their retail—their wholesale—or their wholesale sales to retailers in the state of Florida for the prior fiscal year. Those reports are due on July 1st of each year, but they are not considered late until September 30th of that year. So that gives the wholesaler population a couple of months to compile all of their sales for the prior year, fill out their reports and submit them to the Florida Department of Revenue by the end of September. Additionally, each month, and for each retail location, B Century 21 reports gross monthly sales to the Department, and remits sales tax, utilizing the Department’s form DR-15. Ms. Baker further described the process the Department utilizes in identifying an “audit lead,” utilizing the data that ABT wholesales provide: Specifically for ABT, we have a very, actually, kind of simple comparison that we do. . . . [A]s a taxpayer, as a retailer in the state of Florida, you may purchase from multiple wholesalers. So, part of our job is we compile all of the purchases that each beverage license or tobacco license has purchased, and once we compile all the purchases for the fiscal year, then to say, you know, what were the purchases for the fiscal year versus what were the reported sales for the fiscal year. And, again, a pretty simple comparison we really look to see, did you purchase, or . . . did you report enough sales to cover the amount of purchases that we know you made as a – as a retailer. And if the sales amount does not exceed the purchase amount, then we’ll create a lead on it. The Department’s efiling provider exports the ABT wholesalers’ information to SunVisn, the Department’s database. The Department’s analysts review the ABT wholesalers’ reported data, and taxpayer information, to identify audit leads. The Department then assigns these audit leads to its service centers to conduct an audit. A tax audit period is 36 months. In conducting ABT audits, the Department has 24 months of reported data (i.e., the first 24 months of the audit period) for review. This is because the timing of section 212.133(3) requires ABT wholesalers to report annually on July 1, for the preceding 12- month period of July 1 through June 30. For the ABT reporting data examination period of July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2018 (a period of 24 months), B Century 21’s gross sales for its two liquor stores was as follows: Liquor Store Reported Gross Sales Al’s Liquor $1,051,128.56 Arlington Liquor $902,195.49 For the same 24-month time period of July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018, B Century 21’s wholesalers reported the following ABT inventory purchases to the State, as required under section 212.133: Liquor Store ABT Inventory Purchases Al’s Liquor $1,250,055.79 Arlington Liquor $1,174,877.98 As the ABT wholesalers’ reported ABT inventory purchases by B Century 21’s retail outlets were higher than B Century 21’s reported sales, the Department issued an audit lead, which led to the audit that is at issue in this proceeding. The Audit For the 36-month audit period of July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2019 (audit period), B Century 21’s reported gross sales for each of its locations was: Location Reported Gross Sales Al’s Liquor $1,557,569.74 Arlington Liquor $1,434,551.65 Overtime Sports Bar $968,476.08 On August 20, 2019, Ms. Pitre mailed to B Century 21 (and received by Mr. Altheeb), a Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records for the audit period. Included with the Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records was correspondence informing B Century 21 of the audit and requesting records. On August 26, 2019, Ms. Pitre received a telephone call from Mr. Altheeb. Ms. Pitre’s case activity notes for this call state: Received a call from Baligh Altheeb and he said he will be hiring Brett Isaac as his POA [power of attorney]. I informed him to complete the POA form and to give it to Mr. Isaac for signature and send to me. He knows about ABT Data assessments and asked that I note on the case activity that he contacted me regarding the audit. He was worried that his liquor license will be suspended if he does not respond right away. I informed him that once I receive the POA, I will contact Mr. Isaac and discuss the audit. On October 18, 2019, the Department received B Century 21’s executed power of attorney (POA) form naming Mr. Isaac as its POA for the audit. The executed POA form reflects that the Department’s notices and written communications should be sent solely to Mr. Isaac, and not B Century 21. The executed POA form further reflects that “[r]eceipt by either the representative or the taxpayer will be considered receipt by both.” On October 29, 2019, Ms. Pitre met with Mr. Altheeb and Mr. Isaac at Mr. Isaac’s office, for a pre-audit interview. Ms. Pitre’s case activity notes for this meeting state: Met with the taxpayer contact person, POA Brett Isaac and owner Baligh Thaleeb [sic], at the POA’s location to conduct the pre-audit interview. Discussed the scope of the audit, records needed to conduct the audit, availability of electronic records, business organization, nature of the business, internal controls, and the time line of the audit. Discussed sampling for purchases and POA signed sampling agreement. Made appointment to review records on November 12, 2019. Toured one of the location [sic] to observe business operations, Overtime Sports Bar. On October 30, 2019, Ms. Pitre emailed Mr. Isaac a copy of the Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records, which included a “Sales and Use Tax Information Checklist,” which requested specific taxpayer records. After receiving no response from Mr. Isaac, Ms. Pitre, on November 12, 2019, emailed Mr. Isaac concerning “the status of the records requested during the meeting with you and Mr. Altheeb on October 29, 2019.” Section 212.12(5)(b) provides that when a taxpayer fails to provide records “so that no audit or examination has been made of the books and records of” the taxpayer: [I]t shall be the duty of the department to make an assessment from an estimate based upon the best information then available to it for the taxable period of retail sales of such dealer … or of the sales or cost price of all services the sale or use of which is taxable under this chapter, together with interest, plus penalty, if such have accrued, as the case may be. Then the department shall proceed to collect such taxes, interest, and penalty on the basis of such assessment which shall be considered prima facie correct, and the burden to show the contrary shall rest upon the [taxpayer]. Section 212.12(6)(b) further provides: [I]f a dealer does not have adequate records of his or her retail sales or purchases, the department may, upon the basis of a test or sampling of the dealer’s available records or other information relating to the sales or purchases made by such dealer for a representative period, determine the proportion that taxable retail sales bear to total retail sales or the proportion that taxable purchases bear to total purchases. Mr. Collier testified that, in the absence of adequate records, the Department “estimates using best available information, and for this industry … ABT sales are a higher percentage of their taxable sales.” Because B Century 21 did not provide adequate records to Ms. Pitre, she estimated the total taxable sales for the audit period. For each liquor store that B Century 21 operated, she multiplied its total ABT purchases by average markups to calculate total ABT sales. To derive these average markups, Mr. Collier explained that the Department receives data from wholesalers, and then: [W]e take that purchase information, apply average markup to the different ABT product categories, which include cigarettes, other tobacco, beer, wine, and liquor; and then that gets us to total ABT sales number. And then we derive what we call a percentage of ABT sales, percentage of that number represents. And in this particular model, 95.66 percent represents what we believe in a liquor store industry, that this type of business, that 95.66 percent of their sales are ABT products. We derive the markups, and the percentage of ABT sales from a number of liquor store audits that the Department had performed on liquor stores that provided records. The Department utilized markup data from other ABT audits. The Department applied the following markups to these ABT categories: 6.5 percent for cigarettes; 47.5 percent for other tobacco products; 17.33 percent for beer; 29.84 percent for wine; and 24.5 percent for liquor. Applying the Department’s markup for liquor stores to the wholesalers’ reported ABT data and percentage of taxable sales, Ms. Pitre estimated taxable sales for the ABT reporting data examination period and calculated the under-reported sales error ratio as follows: Location Estimated Taxable Sales Error Ratio Al’s Liquor $1,597.544.01 1.519837 Arlington Liquor $1,516,259.34 1.680633 The Department then divided B Century 21’s estimated taxable sales for the examination period, for each liquor store, by its self-reported tax sales in its DR-15s to arrive at the under-reported rate. The Department then multiplied the under-reported rate by the reported taxable monthly sales in the DR-15s to arrive at the estimated taxable sales for the 36-month audit period. The result of this calculation was: Location Estimated Taxable Sales Al’s Liquor $2,367,252.11 Arlington Liquor $2,410,954.82 The Department then multiplied the estimated taxable sales by an effective estimated tax rate which, after giving credit for B Century 21’s remitted sales tax, resulted in tax due for the Al’s Liquor and Arlington Liquor for the audit period, as follows: Location Sales Tax Owed Al’s Liquor $58,367.01 Arlington Liquor $70,068.44 For Overtime Sports Bar, the Department could not use ABT wholesalers’ data to estimate an assessment because the Department does not have audit data averages for bars and lounges. The Department used the “Tax Due Method” in estimating under-reported taxes and calculating under- reported taxable sales. Mr. Collier explained: The Department does not have average markup and percentage of sales for a bar. Though, you know, obviously, we all know that a bar, their main product that they sell and in most cases is ABT products. So, therefore, typically, an auditor would need to get information about that specific location. Bars can vary so much in their type of business that they do, they can be like nightclubs, or they can be like bar and grill that serves a lot of food. So there’s a lot of variances there for that particular type of industry, so we haven’t really come up with average markups, average percentage of sales for bars, per se. It’s a case-by- case situation, and in this case, the auditor decided that the fair, reasonable way to estimate the bar location would be to just average the error ratios that were derived from the Al’s Liquor and the other liquor store location and apply it to the taxable sales reported for the bar. And I think that’s a very fair and reasonable estimate based on what we all know in a bar situation; their markups are significantly higher. And of course, there can be plenty of other non-ABT taxable sales occurring in a bar setting, such as prepared food, you know, just your regular cokes and drinks. So it’s certainly a fair way to estimate in this particular audit and I believe only benefits the taxpayer. The undersigned credits the Department’s methodology for estimating an assessment for Overtime Sports Bar. Further, Mr. Altheeb testified that Overtime Sports Bar operates as both a sports bar and a liquor/package store, and stated: Most of it—it’s a liquor store. I don’t know if you know the area, it’s a liquor store on the Westside. So most of it—the sport bar doesn’t really do too much business in the Westside, mostly the liquor stores. People coming in and buy package, you know, buy bottles and leave. So, most of the business is the drive-through window. The Department’s decision to average the error ratios for the other two liquor stores to derive the additional tax due average for Overtime Sports Bar is reasonable, particularly in light of Mr. Altheeb’s testimony that Overtime Sports Bar operates primarily as a liquor (package) store. The Department calculated the additional tax due average error ratio for Overtime Sports Bar by averaging the error ratios of Al’s Liquor and Arlington Liquor, and then multiplied it by B Century 21’s reported gross sales to arrive at the additional tax due for Overtime Sports Bar of $41,797.49. Ms. Pitre testified that she determined that, for the audit period, B Century 21 owed additional sales tax of $170,232.93. In addition, the Department imposed a penalty and accrued interest. On December 16, 2019, Ms. Pitre sent correspondence, the preliminary assessment, and a copy of the audit work papers to B Century 21 (through Mr. Isaac), informing B Century 21 that it had 30 days to contact the Department’s tax audit supervisor to request an audit conference or submit a written request for an extension. After receiving no response from B Century 21, Ms. Pitre forwarded the audit workpapers to the Department’s headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida, to process the Notice of Proposed Assessment. B Century 21’s Position As mentioned previously, and after initially meeting with the Department, B Century 21 failed to provide requested financial records or respond to any of the numerous letters and notices received from the Department, despite being given adequate opportunity to do so. And, after filing its Amended Petition, it failed to timely respond to discovery requests from the Department which, inter alia, resulted in numerous matters being conclusively established. Mr. Isaac served as the POA for B Century 21 during the audit, and also appeared in this proceeding as a qualified representative. However, Mr. Isaac did not appear at the final hearing, did not testify as a witness at the final hearing, and does not appear to have done anything for B Century 21 in this proceeding, other than filing the Petition and Amended Petition. After Mr. Heekin appeared in this matter, and well after the time to respond to discovery, B Century 21 provided 127 pages of documents to the Department. These documents consist of: 18 pages of summaries of daily sales that Mr. Altheeb prepared for the hearing; 41 pages of sales and use tax returns from B Century 21 locations, covering 25 months (DR-15s); 2 pages of Harbortouch’s 2016 1099K, reporting credit card sales; 43 pages of unsigned federal tax returns from 2016, 2017, and 2018, prepared by Mr. Isaac; and 17 pages of B Century 21’s untimely responses to the Department’s discovery requests. Florida Administrative Code Rule 12-3.0012(3) defines “adequate records” to include: (3) “Adequate records” means books, accounts, and other records sufficient to permit a reliable determination of a tax deficiency or overpayment. Incomplete records can be determined to be inadequate. To be sufficient to make a reliable determination, adequate records, including supporting documentation, must be: Accurate, that is, the records must be free from material error; Inclusive, that is, the records must capture transactions that are needed to determine a tax deficiency or overpayment; Authentic, that is, the records must be worthy of acceptance as based on fact; and Systematic, that is, the records must organize transactions in an orderly manner. The nature of the taxpayer’s business, the nature of the industry, materiality, third-party confirmations and other corroborating evidence such as related supporting documentation, and the audit methods that are suitable for use in the audit, will be used to establish that the taxpayer has adequate records. The undersigned finds that the summaries of daily sales are not adequate records because Mr. Altheeb prepared them for use at the final hearing, rather than in the regular course of business. The undersigned finds that the DR-15s provided by Mr. Altheeb, covering 25 months, are not adequate records because they are incomplete and are not inclusive. The audit period encompassed 36 months, for B Century 21’s three retail locations; however, Mr. Altheeb only provided 25 months of DR-15s. The 2016, 2017, and 2018 federal tax returns that B Century 21 provided are not adequate records because they are not authentic. Mr. Altheeb was unable to verify if these tax returns were correct, and they were unsigned. B Century 21 did not provide any evidence that it had filed any of these federal tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service. Ms. Pitre reviewed the 127 pages of documents that B Century 21 provided and testified that the summaries of daily sales did not provide the “source documents” for verification. The unsigned federal tax returns reflect that B Century 21 reported a cost-of-goods-sold (COGS) of $518,606.00 for 2016; $1,246,839.00 for 2017; and $796,968.00 for 2018. Additionally, the unsigned federal tax returns reflect that B Century 21 reported a beginning inventory (BI) for 2016 of $95,847.00, and a year-end inventory (EI) for 2016 of $200,556.00, EI for 2017 of $280,235.00, and EI for 2018 of $295,628.00. When comparing the unsigned federal tax returns with the ABT wholesalers’ data, the federal tax returns reflect, for 2016, total inventory purchases of $623,315.00 (which is derived from $518,606.00 (COGS) + $200,556.00 (EI) - $95,847.00 (BI)). However, the ABT wholesalers’ data for 2016 reflects that B Century 21’s ABT purchases were $1,174,997.34 – a discrepancy of more than $500,000.00. For 2017, the federal tax returns reflect total inventory purchases of $1,326,518.00 (which is derived from $1,246,839.00 (COGS) + $280,235.00 (EI) for 2017 - $200,556.00 (EI) for 2016). However, the ABT wholesalers’ data for 2016 reflects that B Century 21’s ABT purchases were $1,422,854.79 – a discrepancy of over $96,000.00. And for 2018, the unsigned federal tax returns reflect total inventory purchases of $812,361.00 (which is derived from $796,968.00 (COGS) + $295,628.00 (EI) for 2018 - $280,235.00 (BI) for 2017). However, the ABT wholesalers’ data for 2018 reflects that B Century 21’s ABT purchases were $1,335,814.00 – a discrepancy of over $500,000.00. Mr. Altheeb testified that Arlington Liquor and Overtime Sports Bar opened in 2016 – after B Century 21 began ownership and operation of Al’s Liquor. He stated that he did not purchase inventory for the openings of the newer locations, but instead transferred excess inventory from Al’s Liquor, which resulted in lower total inventory purchases for 2016. Mr. Altheeb also testified that B Century 21’s three locations experienced spoiled inventory. However, B Century 21 should include spoiled inventory in COGS reported in its federal tax returns, and further, B Century 21 provided no additional evidence of the cost of spoilage for the audit period. The undersigned finds that the ABT wholesalers’ data for 2016 through 2018 reflects similar amounts for inventory purchases between 2016 through 2018. The undersigned credits the Department’s reliance on the ABT wholesalers’ data, which reflect fairly consistent purchases for each year. The undersigned does not find the unsigned federal tax returns that B Century 21 provided to be persuasive evidence that the Department’s assessment was incorrect. Mr. Altheeb testified that he believed Mr. Isaac, who B Century 21 designated as POA for the audit, and who appears as a qualified representative in this proceeding, was actively handling the audit. Mr. Altheeb stated that the audit, and the final hearing, “kind of came out of nowhere” and that once he learned of it, he retained Mr. Heekin and provided “everything” to him. However, it is conclusively established that the Department provided correspondence and notice to B Century 21 through its designated POA, and that B Century 21 failed to respond to record requests in a timely manner. Mr. Isaac neither testified nor appeared at the final hearing to corroborate Mr. Altheeb’s claims that Mr. Isaac did not keep Mr. Altheeb or B Century 21 apprised of the status of the audit, including the failure to provide requested records or to communicate with the Department. B Century 21 also attempted to challenge the Department’s use of markup data from other ABT audits, in an attempt to argue that the markups were inflated and not representative of B Century 21’s markups. However, and as previously found, B Century 21’s failure to timely provide records—or respond in any meaningful way to the audit—undermines this attempt. The undersigned credits the Department’s methodology in using the best information available to it for the audit period in calculating the assessment. Although it became apparent during the final hearing that Mr. Altheeb did not treat the audit of B Century 21 with appropriate seriousness, and deflected blame to Mr. Isaac, and that his approach resulted in a legally appropriate and sustainable audit and assessment based on the Department’s best information available, the undersigned does not find that B Century 21, Mr. Isaac, or Mr. Heekin knew that the allegations of the Amended Petition were not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense, or would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts. The undersigned finds that the Department made its assessment based on the best information then available, and is thus prima facie correct, pursuant to section 212.12(5)(b). The undersigned further finds that B Century 21 did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s assessment is incorrect, pursuant to section 212.12(5)(b).
Conclusions For Petitioner: Robert Andrew Heekin, Esquire The Law Office of Rob Heekin, Jr., P.A. 2223 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 For Respondent: Randi Ellen Dincher, Esquire Franklin David Sandrea-Rivero, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Bureau Plaza Level 1, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Department enter a final order sustaining the January 27, 2020, Notice of Proposed Assessment to B Century 21, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Hamilton, General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Randi Ellen Dincher, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Bureau Plaza Level 1, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Robert Andrew Heekin, Esquire The Law Office of Rob Heekin, Jr., P.A. 2223 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Franklin David Sandrea-Rivero, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Plaza Level 1, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brett J. Isaac 2151 University Boulevard South Jacksonville, Florida 32216 James A Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
