Findings Of Fact During a routine inspection on March 30, 1983, a sample diesel fuel taken from Respondent's place of business in Clearwater, Florida, was tested and was found to have a flash point of 660F. Normal flash point for diesel fuel is 1000F. A Stop Sale Notice was issued March 30, 1983, and sales from this tank were stopped. On March 31, 1983, Respondent posted a $1,000 bond in lieu of having the fuel confiscated. Before the Stop Sale Notice, 1,282 gallons of contaminated diesel fuel had been sold from this tank at a price of $1.099 per gallon.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner deals in fuel oil. It buys fuel oil from several wholesalers and sells it at retail, mainly to people who use fuel oil for heating purposes. Petitioner operates a low pressure pump on its premises for pumping fuel oil from a ten thousand gallon tank into five gallon cans and similar containers brought to the pump by its customers. At peak demand, the ten thousand gallon tank supplying this pump had to be refilled twice a week. In general, however, during the cold season, the tank was refilled only every other week or less often still. No fuel oil was ever pumped from the low pressure pump into any motor vehicle. Petitioner also maintained two big dispersing pumps for filling its tank trucks with fuel oil and a gasoline pump for fueling the truck engines. The trucks were equipped with pumps for emptying their fuel oil tanks, which pumped at the rate of forty gallons per minute. Petitioner advertised home delivery of fuel oil in the newspaper, and dispatched its trucks in response to the resulting telephone calls. In addition to delivering fuel oil for home heating purposes, petitioner occasionally sold larger quantities to fellow fuel oil dealers and to other commercial concerns. In February, March and April of 1974, petitioner sold particularly large quantities of fuel oil to Tampa Electric Company. During the period covered by the audit, petitioner sold from 50,000 to 70,000 gallons to other fuel oil dealers. Petitioner did not get resale certificates from its commercial customers, but Mr. Hayes, until recently petitioner's proprietor, required dealers to show him their dealer's licenses and he copied the dealers' license numbers onto the invoices. In March of 1976, Mr. Donald E. Snyder, a tax examiner in respondent's employ, began auditing petitioner's books. At this time most of petitioner's records were in Orlando in the custody of the Federal Energy Administration. Subsequently, some, but not all, of these records were returned to petitioner. In an effort to reconstruct records which were unavailable, Mr. Snyder contacted petitioner's suppliers and examined their records of sales to petitioner. On January 2, 1977, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Snyder took an inventory of petitioner's fuel oil. Mr. Snyder used this information as well as what records petitioner was able to furnish him, and concluded that petitioner had sold, during the audit period, two thousand four hundred seventy-nine (2,479) gallons of fuel oil to persons or concerns who were users of fuel oil for non-exempt purposes. Written on the invoices evidencing these sales, however, was the phrase "non-road use" or words to that effect. The limited materials with which he worked gave Mr. Snyder no indication as to the disposition of an additional two hundred fifty- eight thousand three hundred forty (258,340) gallons of fuel oil. Although Mr. Snyder approximated petitioner's sales month by month, these figures were unreliable because of certain erroneous assumptions, notably the assumption that petitioner never used additional storage facilities.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent abandon its notice of proposed assessment, as revised. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James P. LaRussa, Esquire Flagship Bank Building, Suite 416 315 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Mr. Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found. On January 15, 1980, Nick Pappas, a petroleum inspector with respondent's Division of Standards, took samples of regular and no lead gasoline from petitioner's station No. 582 located at 3130 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. An analysis of the samples was performed in the Tallahassee lab showing lead contents in the amount of 0.56 grams per gallon in the no lead gasoline sample. The standard for unleaded gasoline offered for sale in Florida is 0.05 gram of lead per gallon. A second sampling and analysis was performed approximately eleven days later because more gasoline had been dumped into the tank since the first sampling. Test results indicated essentially the same level of lead content in the unleaded gasoline. The respondent thereupon issued a "stop sale notice" on January 26, 1980, due to the high content of lead in the product. Tom Nestor, the station manager, was informed that he had several alternatives, including confiscation of the product, with the petitioner posting a bond in the amount of $1,000.00 for the release of the product to be sold as regular gasoline. Having elected this alternative, a "release notice or agreement" was entered into on January 28, 1980. Respondent received a bond in the amount of $1,000.00 from Petitioner, and this amount was deposited into the Gasoline Trust Fund. Tom Nestor admitted the truth of the above facts and admitted that he did not check the product after it was dumped into the tank. He stated that the driver of the delivery truck delivered the product to the wrong gasoline tank. According to Mr. Nestor, the tanks at his station were not properly marked at the time the delivery was made. The "premium" tank was being used to dispense "unleaded" gas, and the deliverer dumped "regular" gasoline into the "unleaded" tank.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's request for a return of the cash bond be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Ware Oil and Supply Company, Inc. (hereafter "Petitioner" or "Ware Oil"), is a wholesale and retail dealer of petroleum products. Ware Oil is a licensed dealer of special and motor fuels. Special fuels are primarily diesel and are used to operate off-highway equipment such as boats, farm tractors and industrial machinery. Beginning March 1980, the Department conducted a special fuels tax audit of the records of the Petitioner for the period January 1, 1977, through January 31, 1980. The special fuels tax audit resulted in a levy of a tax deficiency pursuant to Part II, Chapter 206, Florida Statutes. The taxes assessed together with penalty and interest are $6.868.06, with interest accruing at $1.70 per day from April 14, 1980. The assessment was based in sales of special fuels made by the Petitioner to four customers; Hoxie Brothers Circus, Jackson United Shows, Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina. The assessment relative to the sales of special fuel to Hoxie Brothers Circus and Jackson United Shows was due to the absence of a purchaser's affidavit of exemption from these customers and the Department's belief that they were dual users of special fuel due to the nature of their businesses. The assessment relative to Tommy Lynn was based on the Department's conclusion that Mr. Lynn was a dual user of special fuel and was an unlicensed dealer at the time the sales were made. The assessment relative to Pace's 66 Marina was based on Pace's resale of special fuels for which a dealer's license is required at the time of purchase. The taxes assessed by the Department are derived from the number of gallons of special fuel which was sold by the Petitioner to Hoxie Brothers Circus, Jackson United Shows, Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina, on which the $.08 per gallon tax was not collected. During 1977 Petitioner sold 550 gallons of special fuel to Hoxie Brothers Circus for purposes of generating electricity in order to operate circus rides and lights. The Petitioner did not have an exemption certificate from Hoxie relative to this sale although the sale invoice indicated that the fuel was for "off-road use". Sales tax of $.04 per gallon was collected by the Petitioner from Hoxie. No testimony or documentary evidence was produced to demonstrate that Hoxie in fact used the special fuel for an exempt purpose, that the special fuel was not placed into a receptacle connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle and that the special fuel was not purchased for resale or far a dual use. In 1978, the Petitioner sold 300 gallons of special fuel to Jackson United a circus which generates its own electricity for circus rides and lights. The Petitioner has no exemption certificates for this sale; however, like Hoxie, the sales invoice has the term "off-road use" noted on its face. No testimony or documentary evidence was introduced to demonstrate that Jackson in fact used the special fuel for an exempt purpose, that the special fuel was not placed into a receptacle to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle and that the special fuel was not purchased for resale or for a dual use. In 1977 the Petitioner sold 11,200 gallons of special fuel to Tommy Lynn. At that time Mr. Lynn was an independent logger who used all the special fuel purchased from the Petitioner for his logging equipment in the field and for off-road use. At the time of his purchases from the Petitioner, Mr. Lynn was a dual user of special fuels in that he used special fuel for both on and off road equipment. Mr. Lynn bought his off-road special fuels exclusively from the Petitioner and his on-road special fuel from another dealer. When audited by the Department, Petitioner did not have an exemption certificate for Mr. Lynn on file in its records. The Department in the past accepted exemption certificates obtained after sales were made. Mr. Lynn executed two after the fact exemption certificates. The first certificate was erroneously executed and a second drafted and signed in which Mr. Lynn stated that his purchases were for off-road use. The second certificate corroborates Mr. Lynn's direct testimony that the special fuel purchased from the Petitioner was used solely for off-road use. Neither of these certificates demonstrates that Mr. Lynn was a licensed dealer in special fuels. During 1977, 1978 and 1979 the Petitioner sold 52,484 gallons of special fuel to Pace's 66 Marina. Pace's used this special fuel for resale to users of commercial and pleasure boats and therefore, no sales tax was collected. The location of the special fuel pumps at Pace's make it virtually impossible to use the fuel for purposes other than boating. At the time of the fuel's purchase, Pace's presented an exemption certificate to the Petitioner. At that time, Pace's was not a licensed dealer of special fuels and its dealer's license number did not appear on the exemption certificate furnished to the Petitioner. Petitioner was unaware that Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina were required to be licensed as dealers and the exemption certificates provided by them should have that contained their dealer's license numbers and therefore, had no knowledge that the exemption certificates of Mr. Lynn and Pace's were incomplete. The sales were made by Petitioner in reliance on the certificates supplied by these two customer. The Department imposed the assessment against Hoxie and Jackson due to the lack of appropriate exemption certificates. The assessment was levied against Tommy Lynn and Pace's due to improperly completed exemption certificates which failed to reflect the dealer's license number. The Department did not consider whether the involved special fuels were in fact used for exempt purposes. The unrebutted testimony and documentary evidence regarding the sales to Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina supports Petitioner's position that the fuels sold to these two customers were in fact used for exempt purposes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order upholding the tax assessment against the Petitioner, Ware Oil and Supply Company. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas Yonclas, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeff Kielbasa, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LLO4 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not the agency may, pursuant to Section 525.06 F.S., assess $390.04 for sale of substandard product due to a violation of the petroleum inspection laws and also set off that amount against Petitioner's bond.
Findings Of Fact Coleman Oil Co., Inc. d/b/a Shell Oil Co. at I-75 and SR 26 Gainesville, Florida, is in the business of selling kerosene, among other petroleum products. On November 15, 1990, Randy Herring, an inspector employed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and who works under the direction of John Whitton, Chief of its Bureau of Petroleum, visited the seller to conduct an inspection of the petroleum products being offered for sale to the public. Mr. Herring drew a sample of "1-K" kerosene being offered for sale, sealed it, and forwarded it to the agency laboratory in Tallahassee where Nancy Fisher, an agency chemist, tested it to determine whether it met agency standards. The testing revealed that the sampled kerosene contained .22% by weight of sulfur. This is in excess of the percentage by weight permitted by Rule 5F- 2.001(2) F.A.C. for this product. A "Stop Sale Notice" was issued, and on the date of that notice (November 20, 1990) the inspector's comparison of the seller's delivery sheets and the kerosene physically remaining in his tanks resulted in the determination that 196 gallons of kerosene had been sold to the public. Based on a posted price of $1.99 per gallon, the retail value of the product sold was determined, and the agency accordingly assessed a $390.04 penalty. The agency also permitted the seller to post a bond for the $390.04 on November 21, 1990. The assessment is reasonable and conforms to the amount of assessments imposed in similar cases.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the $390.04 assessment and offsetting the bond against it. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 25th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLINTON H. COULTER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 510 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 MR. RANDAL W. COLEMAN COLEMAN OIL COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 248 GAINESVILLE, FL 32602 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioners are several of the current operators of the eleven service stations located at the eight service plazas on the Florida Turnpike. Each has considerable experience and background in the business of supplying oil and petroleum products to the motoring public on the Turnpike. Currently, the Turnpike service stations are being operated by lessees, or their sublessees, who contracted in 1977 and 1978 with the DOT for a five year term. The leases have been extended due to a series of legal proceedings. Each petitioner is a lessee or a sublessee operator. Prior to 1984, the DOT obtained service station operations on the Turnpike through the competitive bidding process. In 1984, the Legislature changed the mode of acquiring such services by requiring a request for proposal process. Eight factors, as well as such other factors as the DOT may deem pertinent, were enumerated by the Legislature to be used in evaluating proposals. Section 338.235(2)(a), Florida Statutes. By letter dated July 31, 1984, the DOT notified the petitioners and other potential proposers of the legislative change in procedures for securing concessionaire services on the Turnpike. Current operators and others were informed of the factors to be used in evaluating upcoming proposals and were informed that the DOT would require both full service and self- service fuel dispensing for each station. The DOT requested input and suggestions regarding the upcoming RFP process. Interested persons were solicited as proposers through advertisements and were advised to submit their letters of interest and statement of qualifications to the DOT. Some 38 parties, including the petitioners herein, were certified by the DOT as qualified to propose. The RFP in question was distributed to the prequalified proposers in April of 1986. On June 12, 1986, a preproposal conference was held by the DOT to answer written questions which had previously been submitted and to answer questions from the floor. The 44 questions and answers were later reduced to a single document and were mailed to each of the proposers. The DOT also issued three addendums modifying several of the original RFP requirements. In general, the RFP solicits creative and innovative proposals for modernization of the service station operations and facilities. It requires a combination of both full and self-service fuel dispensing, wrecker service, minor repair service and 24-hour a day operations. Basic remodeling changes are required, and major renovations will be considered. The RFP and its addenda provide detailed comments and directions as to the concepts which the proposers are requested to develop. The proposed service station lease agreement is attached to the RFP, and it provides further information as to the basic services required. Proposals submitted are to be evaluated based upon a point system set forth in the RFP as follows: "Management Plan (Maximum of 50 Points) 0 - 10 Points - Full intent to comply with the terms of the proposed Lease Agreement for the services as set forth in Section IV of this RFP, including specifically the provi- sions covering retail pricing of motor fuels and services to be offered. 0 - 20 Points - Meeting the needs and des- ires of Turnpike patrons; including but not limited to cleanliness of restrooms, appear- ance of the premises, fast service, quality products, reasonable prices, friendly person- nel. 0 - 20 Points - Extent and style of ser- vices to be provided; including but not limited to road and wrecker services where applicable, scope of repairs, ratio of self- service to full-service fuel pumps. Additional Considerations (Maximum of 50 Points) 0 - 25 Points - Renovation concept schedule and financial commitment to provide remodeled facilities. 0 - 15 Points - Revenue to Department. 0 - 10 Points - Qualifications - Skills and experience of the proposer to under take the Assignment." Each member of a five-member selection committee will independently award the points, the numbers will then be averaged, and the proposals with the highest score and those clustered within ten points of the highest score will be submitted to the DOT Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for final selection. Beyond the quoted point system set forth in the RFP, the DOT has not further articulated the criteria by which the scorers will differentiate between an award of 0 points and 10 or 20 points. The selection committee is comprised of five DOT employees whose range of experience includes Turnpike operations, maintenance operations, financial matters, real estate matters and the current service station operations. None of the five members has actually operated a service station. Originally, the RFP required a 5 to 7 year performance bond. However, after receiving criticism as to the availability of such a bond, the bond form was revised in a manner which would be acceptable to sureties doing business in Florida. While the form is now acceptable, an actual commitment from an insurance company may be difficult to obtain prior to actual knowledge of the ultimate terms of the contract. The RFP initially required a 5 to 7 year supply contract agreement with oil companies. The current operators who are petitioners in this proceeding have never been guaranteed a 5 to 7 year commitment by their oil and fuel suppliers. One prequalified proposer had obtained a least one letter of commitment from a major oil company for six and seven year terms. In one of the preproposal questions regarding the reasonableness of the length of the required supply commitment, the DOT responded: "The proposer should indicate in his proposal what is reasonable in the oil industry, i.e., a one year, two year, or three year lease, etc., or the best lease that can be secured from an oil company." The terms of the lease agreement under the RFP require a Holmes Model No. 440W wrecker. Although some of the current operators utilize this model, the DOT, when informed that the 440W wrecker may be obsolete, responded that "the proposers can propose use of an equiva- lent or this model number with appropriate attachments to ensure compatibility with latest model vehicles." Previously submitted proposals may be modified at any time prior to the proposal's due date, but modifications will not be considered after that date. The DOT does reserve to itself the right to negotiate certain changes and resolve questions with the successful bidder relating to the final lease agreement. However, this reservation is limited. There can be no substantial changes in the general plan or character of the work such as to evade the competitive process. Actual and prospective proposers were notified in the cover sheet attached to the RFP that disputes as to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the RFP could be resolved by filing a protest in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and applicable agency rules. In the questions and answers provided to all qualified proposers, the DOT stated that protests concerning the RFP could be handled differently from the Section 120.53(5) procedure for protests of competitive bidding, and would be adjudicated like all agency decisions affecting substantial interests under the provisions of Section 120.57. Qualified proposers were also advised that the DOT would rely upon Department of General Services' Chapter 13A-1, Florida Administrative Code, where it pertains to bid invitations. The DOT has not promulgated separate rules for the instant request for proposal process. As indicated above, it has instead stated its intent to rely upon Chapter 13A, the Department of General Services rules, in its administration of the present RFP process. The petitioners currently have pending in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County (Case No. 86-3546) a declaratory judgment suit for statutory interpretation of Section 338.235, Florida Statutes. The primary issue in that proceeding is whether the Legislature required the DOT to adopt rules before utilizing the RFP process for obtaining service station operations on the Turnpike.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for hearing be DISMISSED, and that the Department of Transportation reschedule the proposal deadline after reasonable notice to all prequalified proposers. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3732 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioners and the respondent have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner Page 4, last 2 sentences: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. Page 6, last paragraph through page 7 through 1st full paragraph: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence, and argumentative. Page 7, 2nd full paragraph: Rejected; see Finding of Fact 10. Page 8, last sentence of 1st paragraph: Rejected; argumentative. Page 8, 2nd paragraph: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. Page 9, subsection c: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. Respondent #2, beyond 1st two sentences: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. #3: Rejected; irrelevant, immaterial and argumentative. #7: Rejected in so far as it contains argument of counsel and legal conclusions as opposed to factual findings. #8: Same as above. #11, 2nd paragraph: Rejected insofar as it includes legal conclusions as opposed to factual findings. #12, 1st paragraph: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. #12, 2nd paragraph: Rejected; argumentative. #13, 2nd paragraph: Rejected; argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Newnum, Esquire Giles, Hedricks & Robinson, P.A. 109 E. Church Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2631 Orlando, Florida 32802 Judy Rice and Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James J. Richardson, Esquire Route One, Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is licensed as a dealer of special fuel pursuant to Florida Statutes 206 and has been assigned license Number 1627. The pertinent sections of Florida Statutes which are applicable to this case are ss206.86(1), (6), (8), 206.87, 206.89, 206.93, 206.94 and Ch. 212. The pertinent rules of the Department of Revenue applicable to special fuels sales involved herein is 12A-2.03. The deposition of Albert Colozoff and all answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admissions are admissible as evidence and are to be made a part of the record in this cause. The Petitioner sold special fuels to Zamora Truck and Car Services, Roberts Equipment Company and Florida Petroleum, Inc. Petitioner was assessed by the Respondent for tax on 1,979,201 gallons of special fuel sold by it and paid tax and interest as set forth in the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. That no penalty paid on any of the tax paid pursuant to that letter. That Petitioner did not remit taxes that were due during the month the sales of special fuel were reported on any of the sale to Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum or the remaining 1,417,263 gallons sold. Zamora and Roberts represented to Belcher that they were purchasing all special fuel from Belcher for exempt agricultural use. Due to past dealings and delivery of the special fuel to a farm, Belcher believed and relied upon the facts represented to it by Zamora and Roberts. However, Belcher did not obtain written documentation of this agricultural use from Zamora or Roberts and did not furnish the Department with any such written documentation. Belcher did not obtain resale certificates or exemption certificates or dealer license numbers from Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum. Nor did the report forms filed by Belcher contain resale certificates, exemption certificates or dealer license numbers from Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum. An employee of the Department advised Belcher that Zamora and Roberts were under investigation for fraudulent failure to report taxes. Belcher paid sales tax on sales of special fuel in the amount of $18,589.53 on the sale of 538,030 gallons of special fuel. Zamora is not a licensed dealer of special fuels. Florida Petroleum is not a licensed dealer of special fuel. Roberts is not a licensed dealer of special fuel. Belcher did not fraudulently file incorrect monthly special fuels reports. The Department of Revenue audited Belcher and computed tax, penalty and interest due as set forth in the documents attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Department of Revenue advised Belcher of its duties regarding reporting requirements in the letters from L. N. Thomas attached as Exhibit C.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's assessment be upheld with respect to Petitioner's tax deficiency, penalty and interest as set forth in the assessments with adjustments to be made for payments paid by Petitioner under the "sales tax" theory. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James R. McCachren, Jr., Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Townsend, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
