The Issue The issue presented is what is Peaches' basis in the Sterling stock?
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the material facts in the instant case, Exhibit 1 presented at the hearing is a composite exhibit which is comprised of the Petitioner's U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return and Florida Corporate Income Tax Return for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. Exhibit 3 is the Respondent's document entitled "Income Tax Audit Changes" which reflects the adjustments made by the Respondent based upon a review of the Petitioner's return and the reasons for assessing the deficiency. Exhibit 2 is a composite exhibit comprised of the Petitioner's Amended Protest of the proposed deficiency and the Respondent's letter denying the same. Petitioner's federal return (Exhibit 1) Schedule D, Part II, reflects the 31,500 shares were acquired in 1958 at a cost basis of $10,191.00. These shares were subsequently sold by Peaches in 1972 for $1,160,131.00 or a gain of $1,149,940.00. This gain was reported on line 9(a) of the federal tax return as a portion of the "net capital gains." On its 1973 Florida Corporate Income Tax Return, Petitioner computed the income using the basis for the stock as of January 2, 1972, thereby reducing its reported income by $1,013,040.00 from the federal tax. The $1,013,040.00 reflects the amount of appreciation in the value of the stock between the transferrer's acquisition and January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1971 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's petition be denied and that the assessment against the Petitioner in the amount of $29,435.00 together with interest be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire Trinkle and Redman, P.A. 306 West Reynolds Street Plant City, Florida 33566 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA PEACHES OF FLORIDA, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1433 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. / NOTICE TO: JAMES S. MOODY, JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER TRINKLE AND REDMAN, P. A. 306 WEST REYNOLDS STREET PLANT CITY, FLORIDA 33566 E. WILSON CRUMP, II, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 5557 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 You will please take notice that the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida, acting as head of the Department of Revenue, at its meeting on the 5th day of April, 1979, approved the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer dated January 22, 1979, with paragraph 3 of the "Findings of Fact" therein amended to read as follows: "The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1972 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation", in accordance with Stipulation of the Petitioner and Respondent filed in the case on March 1, 1979. This constitutes final agency action by the Department of Revenue. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF FLORIDA ROOM 104, CARLTON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was furnished by mail to James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire, Trinkle and Redman, P. A., 306 West Reynolds Street, Plant City, Florida 33566, Attorney for Petitioner; by hand delivery to Wilson Crump, II, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Post Office fox 5557, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, Attorney for Respondent and Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings; Room 530, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of April, 1979. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration issued on November 16, 2009, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute that the Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating, controlling, and administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including the laws relating to the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use tax pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. There is no dispute that Abkey is a Florida corporation whose principal address is 7800 Southwest 104th Street, Miami, Florida 33156. Abkey is a restaurant. At the time of hearing, Abkey had 33 employees and was operating at a deficit. There is no dispute that, at all times material hereto, Abkey possessed Florida sales tax certificate of registration number 23-8012096448-9, issued by the Department on April 18, 1994. There is no dispute that Abkey is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2), Florida Statutes, and has been a dealer at all times material hereto. For the month of June 2009, Abkey failed to file a sales tax return. As a result of this failure, the Department assessed Abkey an estimated sales tax due in the amount of $9,500.00. For 2005, Abkey failed to remit its self-reported sales tax liability to the Department for the months of July, September, October, November, and December. Abkey self-reported its tax liability, by filing sales tax returns, for the said months. For 2006, Abkey failed to remit its self-reported sales tax liability to the Department for the months of January and May. Abkey self-reported its tax liability, by filing sales tax returns, for the said months. Also, for 2006, Abkey failed to timely remit its sales tax liability for the month of October for which the Department assessed a penalty and an administrative/collection/processing fee. For 2007, Abkey failed to remit its self-reported sales tax liability to the Department for the months of February and August. Abkey self-reported its tax liability, by filing sales tax returns, for the said months. Also, for 2007, Abkey failed to timely remit its sales tax liability for the month of October, for which the Department assessed a penalty and an administrative/collection/processing fee. In total, for 2005, 2006, and 2007, Abkey self- reported sales tax due and failed to remit to the Department sales tax reportedly due in the amount of $122,355.36. As a result of Abkey's failure to file the sales tax return, to remit the $122,355.36 in sales tax, and to remit timely sales tax, the Department assessed Abkey, as of October 29, 2009, $16,287.59 in interest, $4,891.73 in penalties, and $13,845.10 in administrative/collection/ processing fees. Additionally, for the month of February 2007, Abkey issued to the Department a dishonored check (electronic funds transfer) on March 23, 2007, in the amount of $18,254.00. The Department assessed a $150.00 return check fee for the dishonored check. Shortly after being notified of the dishonored check by the Department, Abkey paid the $18,254.00. Abkey has a significant history of delinquency in remitting payments to the Department. The Department made several attempts, unsuccessfully, to collect the delinquent tax liabilities, including issuing Tax Warrants. In January 2007, the Department sought to revoke Abkey's Certificate of Registration for delinquent returns and outstanding liability and engaged in an informal conference with Abkey. As a result of the informal conference, Abkey and the Department entered into a Compliance Agreement executed on February 15, 2010. The Compliance Agreement required Abkey, among other things, to remit all past due payments; for 12 months (January through December 2007), to timely file tax returns and to timely remit all sales tax due; and to make a down payment of $45,000.00 (in three monthly installments but no later than April 1, 2007), 11 monthly payments of $5,000.00 (beginning May 1, 2007), and a balloon payment of $141,982.43 on April 1, 2008. Further, regarding the balloon payment of $141,982.43, the Compliance Agreement provided that the balloon payment might be negotiated for another 12 months. However, in order for Abkey to take advantage of this provision, Abkey was required to be compliant with the terms of the Compliance Agreement and its account was required to be in good standing with the Department. In accordance with the Compliance Agreement, Abkey paid the down payment of $45,000.00 (in three monthly installments) and the 11 payments of $5,000.00 although the 11 payments were late. Additionally, for the period of January through December 2007, Abkey was late filing tax returns and remitting sales tax. Abkey requested a renewal of the Compliance Agreement. Despite the late payments, the Department approved the renewal of the Compliance Agreement. A Compliance Agreement Renewal was executed on May 1, 2008. It required Abkey, among other things, to remit all past due payments and to timely file tax returns and timely remit all sales tax due for the next 12 months (May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009); and to make 11 monthly payments of $5,000.00 (beginning May 1, 2008), and a balloon payment of $120,749.14 on April 1, 2009. Furthermore, regarding the balloon payment of $120,749.14, the Compliance Agreement Renewal provided that the balloon payment might be negotiated for another 12 months. However, in order for Abkey to take advantage of this provision, Abkey was required to be compliant with the terms of the Compliance Agreement Renewal and its account was required to be in good standing with the Department. Under the Compliance Agreement Renewal, Abkey made four payments of $5,000.00 but the payments were late. Abkey requested a reduction in the amount of the monthly payments from $5,000.00 to $2,000.00. The Department granted Abkey's request. Abkey made 12 payments of $2,000.00 but the payments were late. Additionally, for the period of May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009, Abkey was late filing tax returns and remitting sales tax. Further, Abkey failed to make the balloon payment of $120,749.14 that was due on April 1, 2009. Abkey did not request a renegotiation of the balloon payment. At that time, Abkey did not request another Compliance Agreement. As of September 28, 2010, Abkey owed the Department $122,355.36 in actual sales tax (per Abkey's sales tax returns), $9,500.00 in estimated tax, $4,419.73 in penalty2, $14,572.80 in administrative/collection/processing fees3, $25,032.28 in interest, and $20.00 in warrant fees; totaling $175,900.17. The Department seeks to revoke Abkey's Certificate of Registration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking the Certificate of Registration issued to and held by Abkey No. 1 Limited. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 18th day of February, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for the sales and use tax assessment issued by Respondent on February 21, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), has issued a proposed sales and use tax assessment in the amount of $24,546.54, plus $6,640.12 in penalties, plus interest from the date of the assessment, against Petitioner, Florida Truck Dock Company (Petitioner or taxpayer). As of March 20, 1997, the assessment totaled $55,195.27, and it continues to increase by $8.07 each day. The assessment constitutes taxes, penalties, and interest allegedly due from Petitioner for various materials and supplies purchased by Petitioner for use in the performance of real property contracts for Petitioner's customers. In its response to the assessment, Petitioner denied that it owed the money. Petitioner's business activities consisted primarily of purchasing truck loading dock equipment from suppliers, principally Kelly Company, Inc. (Kelly), and then installing such equipment as an improvement to real estate. Its records indicate that purchased equipment was generally brought into Florida and installed in real property in the state under a contract whereby parts and labor were furnished for one lump sum contract price. The foregoing contracts were Class A or lump sum contracts within the meaning of Rule 12A-1.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Class A contracts are considered contracts for the improvement of real estate, not contracts for the resale of tangible personal property. In addition, when the equipment was purchased, Petitioner had not issued resale certificates to its vendors. Under these circumstances, Petitioner was properly treated as an end-user of the equipment in question and owed use taxes on all such purchases of tangible personal property. This controversy began on March 30, 1992, when DOR issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records of the taxpayer in conjunction with a routine audit. The notice requested that Petitioner make available various corporate records pertaining to its sales and use tax and intangible tax liability. However, only the sales and use tax is in issue here. DOR later advised the taxpayer that the audit period would run from March 1, 1987, through February 29, 1992, and that instead of a detailed audit, only a three-month sampling of the full audit period would be necessary. An initial audit revealed that Petitioner was entitled to a refund. None was given, however, because of information supplied by an employee of the taxpayer regarding the possible destruction and alteration of certain records by the taxpayer, and the auditor's conclusion that a three-month sampling of the records was not representative for the full five-year audit period. In addition, the auditor concluded that the results of the sample period were not reasonable. For these reasons, the scope of the audit was expanded. The auditor then requested, among other things, that copies of all sales (summary) journals for the entire five-year period be produced. Although Petitioner has always contended that these journals were merely "commission" journals for transactions between its vendors and customers, the auditor's finding that they are records of cash transactions is consistent with the language on the face of the journals, referring to "deposits" and "total deposits." Further, a comparison of the journals with Petitioner's own bank statements confirms this finding. At least twelve months of the records were missing, and the taxpayer agreed to recreate the missing records. Once a copy of all journals (both original and recreated) was produced, the auditor tested their validity and then made various audit adjustments, which are reflected on Schedule A-2 of Exhibit 5. In those instances where inadequate cost price information concerning equipment purchases was provided by the taxpayer, the auditor properly used estimates in making his adjustments. The tax liability for each taxable transaction was recorded by the taxpayer under Account 367 on the sales journals. The auditor then examined the source documents (original invoices) to verify the accuracy of the recorded amounts. These numbers were then compared with the taxes paid by the taxpayer on its monthly tax returns filed with DOR. This comparison produced a deficiency which represents approximately 75 percent of the total assessment. However, in those instances where Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers, and remitted the same to DOR, Petitioner was not assessed with a tax for those same items. A sampling of the audit period established that Petitioner also had a number of lump-sum contracts with various governmental customers on which it neither paid taxes to the vendor when the equipment was purchased, nor did it collect taxes from the end-user when the equipment was resold. Thus, it was responsible for the use taxes on these transactions. The deficiency is detailed on Schedule B-3 of the final audit report (Exhibit 6), and it accounts for approximately 14 percent of the total assessment. The remaining part of the assessment is related to four miscellaneous transactions which are unrelated to the sales journals. Two of the transactions occurred during the short period of time when the service tax was in effect in 1987, while the remaining two relate to small purchases of equipment and supplies by the taxpayer for its own consumption. There was no evidence that the taxpayer paid the taxes due on these transactions. DOR met with the taxpayer, its accountant, and its original counsel on various occasions in an effort to obtain more documentation favorable to the taxpayer's position. In most cases, the taxpayer refused to provide more records. At one meeting, however, the taxpayer produced additional source documents (invoices) that appeared to be altered from the original invoices previously given to the auditor. These are shown in Exhibit 7 received in evidence. When asked by the auditor for copies of the same invoices sent to customers so that the discrepancy could be resolved, the taxpayer refused to comply with this request. During the audit process, the taxpayer contended that its primary supplier, Kelly, had already paid taxes on a number of the transactions. No documentation was produced, however, to support this contention. It also complained that there was bias on the part of DOR's auditor. As to this contention, the record shows that the auditor had no relationship with the taxpayer prior to this audit, and for the intangible personal property tax, the auditor's field work actually resulted in a refund for Petitioner. Finally, the taxpayer contended that rather than using the originally supplied records, the auditor should have used Petitioner's recreated or altered records in making the audit adjustments. This latter contention has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining its original assessment against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Benjamin K. Phipps, Esquire Post Office Box 1351 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 L. H. Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39-8011930243-9 should be revoked for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Administrative Complaint) issued by the Department of Revenue (Department) on June 5, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the state revenue laws, including the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation doing business as The Hyde Park Cafe at 1806 West Platt Street, Tampa, Florida. For purposes of collecting and remitting sales and use taxes, it is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2) and is required to comply with chapter 212. Respondent holds Certificate of Registration number 39- 8011930243-9, which became effective on July 27, 2000. A certificate of registration is required in order to do business in the state and requires its holder to collect and remit sales tax pursuant to chapter 212. See § 212.05(1), Fla. Stat. Respondent is also an employing unit as defined in section 443.036(20) and is subject to the unemployment compensation tax (UCT) provisions of chapter 443, as provided in section 443.1215. Through an interagency agreement with the Department of Economic Opportunity, the Department provides collection services for UCTs. See § 443.1316(1), Fla. Stat. In doing so, the Department is considered to be administering a revenue law of the state. See § 443.1316(2), Fla. Stat. A dealer must file with the Department sales tax returns and remit the tax collected on a monthly basis. See § 212.15(1), Fla. Stat. Also, an employment unit must remit payment to the Department for UCTs due and owing on a quarterly basis. The Department is authorized to revoke a dealer's certificate of registration for failure to comply with state tax laws. See § 212.18(3)(e), Fla. Stat. If the Department files a warrant, notice of lien, or judgment lien certificate against the property of a dealer, it may also revoke a certificate of registration. See § 213.692(1), Fla. Stat. Before revoking a certificate of registration, the Department must convene an informal conference that the dealer is required to attend. See § 213.692(1)(a), Fla. Stat. At the conference, the dealer may either present evidence to refute the Department's allegations of noncompliance or enter into a compliance agreement with the Department to resolve the dealer's failure to comply with chapter 212. Id. After a compliance agreement is executed by the dealer, the Department may revoke the certificate of registration if the dealer fails to comply with its terms and conditions. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ E. If a breach occurs, the entire amount is due and payable immediately. Id. at ¶ G. An informal conference can be characterized as the Department's last administrative remedy to collect delinquent taxes before beginning revocation proceedings. A dealer can also enter into a diversion program with the State Attorney's Office to resolve liabilities, but the record shows that Respondent defaulted on that arrangement. According to the Department, collection problems with this dealer first began in 2003. Department records show that Respondent failed to remit required sales taxes for the months of January 2012, August through December 2012, January through December 2013, and January and February 2014. In addition, Respondent failed to remit UCTs for the calendar quarters ending September 2010, December 2010, March 2011, June 2011, September 2011, December 2011, March 2012, June 2012, September 2012, December 2012, and March 2013. Respondent does not dispute that it failed to timely remit and pay the foregoing taxes for the time periods listed above. For the purpose of collecting the delinquent taxes, the Department issued and filed against Respondent delinquent tax warrants, notices of lien, or judgment lien certificates in the Hillsborough County public records. See Pet'r Ex. 3. Before seeking revocation of Respondent's certificate of registration, on February 5, 2014, the Department's Tampa Service Center served on Respondent a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Notice). See Pet'r Ex. 4. The Notice scheduled an informal conference on March 21, 2014. It listed 16 periods of sales and use tax noncompliance and 11 periods of re-employment tax noncompliance and provided the total tax liability as of that date. This number was necessarily fluid, as the taxes owed were accruing interest, penalties, and/or fees on a daily basis. The purpose of the informal conference was to give Respondent a final opportunity to make full payment of all delinquent taxes, or to demonstrate why the Department should not revoke its Certificate of Registration. As pointed out by the Department, an informal conference allows a dealer to bring up "any concerns" that it has regarding its obligations. Respondent's manager and registered agent, Christopher Scott, appeared at the conference on behalf of Respondent.1/ At the meeting, he acknowledged that the dealer had not timely paid the taxes listed in the Notice and that the money was used instead to keep the business afloat. However, Mr. Scott presented paperwork representing that sales and use tax returns and payments for the months of November 2013 through February 2014 had just been filed online, and checks in the amount of $8,101.41 and $9,493.99 were recently sent to Tallahassee. It takes 24 hours for online payments to show up in the system, and even more time for checks to be processed in Tallahassee. Accordingly, the Department agreed that Mr. Scott could have a few more days before signing a compliance agreement. This would allow the Department to verify that the payments were posted and recalculate the amount of taxes still owed. Also, before entering a compliance agreement, Respondent was required to make a down payment of around $20,000.00. Mr. Scott had insufficient cash, and a delay of a few days would hopefully allow him to secure the necessary money for a down payment. When none of the payments had posted by March 25, 2014, the Department calculated a total liability of $113,448.13, consisting of sales and use taxes and UCTs, penalties, interest, and fees. As of that date, none of the taxes listed in Finding of Fact 9 had been paid. On March 25, 2014, Respondent's controller, who did not attend the informal conference, sent an email to the Department requesting a breakdown on the new tax liability. In response to her request, the Department faxed a copy of the requested information. See Resp. Ex. 4. After getting this information, the controller continued to take the position that the Department's calculations overstate Respondent's tax liability. On March 31, 2014, Mr. Scott signed the compliance agreement. See Pet'r Ex. 6. Despite the controller testifying that she did not agree with the numbers, no question was raised by Mr. Scott when he signed the agreement. By then, the check in the amount of $8,101.41 had cleared and been credited to Respondent's account. Along with other funds, it was used towards the down payment of $20,000.00. The record does not show the status of the other payments that Mr. Scott claimed were mailed or filed online prior to the informal conference; however, on March 31, 2014, except for the one check, none had yet posted. The compliance agreement required scheduled payments for 12 months, with the final payment, a balloon payment in an undisclosed amount, being subject to renegotiation in the last month. Payments one and two were $1,500.00, while payments three through 11 were $2,900.00. The compliance agreement reflected a balance owed of $95,887.36, consisting of $60,504.34 in sales taxes and $35,347.02 in UCTs.2/ In return for the Department refraining from pursuing revocation proceedings, the compliance agreement required Respondent to "remit all past due amounts to the Department as stated in the attached payment agreement," "accurately complete and timely file all required tax returns and reports for the next 12 months," and "timely remit all taxes due for the next 12 months." Pet'r Ex. 1, p. 1. In other words, the compliance agreement addressed both delinquent taxes and current taxes that would be due during the following 12-month period, and it required that both categories of taxes be timely paid in the manner prescribed by the agreement. To summarize the salient points of the agreement, all taxes were to be timely paid; delinquent taxes were to be paid by certified check, money order, or cash and were to be mailed or hand delivered to the Tampa Service Center and not Tallahassee; and while not specifically addressed in the agreement, the dealer was instructed to pay all current obligations electronically, as required by law. Otherwise, Respondent was in violation of the compliance agreement. A Payment Agreement Schedule for past due taxes was incorporated into the compliance agreement and provided that the first payment was due April 30, 2014, payable to: Florida Department of Revenue, Tampa Service Center, 6302 East Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33619. Payments 2 through 12 were to be mailed or hand delivered to the same address. This meant, with no ambiguity, that money should not be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that these instructions were misunderstood. Unless a waiver is granted, Respondent is required by statute and rule to electronically file sales and use tax returns and UCT reports. See § 213.755, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 12-24.009 (where a taxpayer has paid its taxes in the prior state fiscal year in an amount of $20,000.00 or more, subsequent payments shall be made electronically). No waivers have been approved. In 2003, the Department notified Respondent of these requirements and Respondent complied with this directive until 2009. For reasons not disclosed, in 2009 Respondent voluntarily quit filing electronically. The record is silent on why this was allowed.3/ In any event, at the informal conference, Mr. Scott was specifically told that all current returns, reports, and taxes must be filed electronically, and not by mail, and that no money should be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that he misunderstood these instructions. In its PRO, Respondent correctly points out that the requirement to file current returns electronically was not specifically addressed in the compliance agreement. This is because the compliance agreement does not set forth every statutory and rule requirement that applies to a dealer. If this amount of detail were required, a dealer could ignore any otherwise applicable rule or statute not found in the compliance agreement. This contention has no merit. Respondent failed to electronically file the current sales and use tax return and payment for the month of March 2014, due no later than April 21, 2014. Instead, it sent a paper check, which was returned by the bank for insufficient funds. This constituted a breach of the compliance agreement. Despite repeated instructions on how and where to pay the delinquent taxes, payment 1, due on April 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent to Tallahassee, rather than the Tampa office. This contravened the compliance agreement. When payment was not timely received by the Tampa Service Center, Respondent was told that a check must be delivered to the Tampa office by May 9. Respondent hand delivered a second check, this one certified, to the Tampa Service Center on May 9, 2014, or after the April 30 due date. The second check was treated as payment 1. Respondent points out that on May 7 the Tampa Service Center granted its request for an extension of time until May 9 in which to deliver the certified check. While this is true, the extension was allowed in an effort to "work with" the Respondent on the condition that the account would be brought current by that date; otherwise, revocation proceedings would begin. Even if the extra ten days is construed as a grace period for payment 1, there were other violations of the compliance agreement set forth below. Payment 2 for delinquent taxes, due on May 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent by mail to Tallahassee rather than the Tampa Service Center.4/ This contravened the compliance agreement. After the May 30, 2014 payment, Respondent made no further payments pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule. This constituted a violation of the compliance agreement. Respondent did not remit payment with its current sales and use return for the month of August 2014. This contravened the compliance agreement. Respondent did not file any current sales and use tax returns or remit payment for the months of July 2014 or September through January 2015. This contravened the compliance agreement. Beginning in March 2014, Respondent filed current reemployment tax returns and payments using the incorrect tax rate on every return. This delayed their processing and resulted in penalties being imposed. In addition, even though Respondent was repeatedly told that such returns must be filed electronically, none were filed in that manner, as required by statute and rule. This contravened the compliance agreement. In its PRO, Respondent contends the compliance agreement cannot be enforced because there was no "meeting of the minds" by the parties on all essential terms of the agreement. Specifically, it argues that the total amount of taxes owed was still in dispute -- the dealer contended that it owed $23,000.00 less than was shown in the agreement; the Payment Schedule Agreement did not specify the amount of the final balloon payment; the compliance agreement failed to state when payments are due if the due date falls on a weekend or holiday; the compliance agreement did not specify how the dealer's payments would be allocated between UCTs and sales and use taxes; and the compliance agreement failed to address the issue of filing electronically. Although some of these issues were not raised in the parties' Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, or even addressed by testimony at hearing, they are all found to be without merit for the reasons expressed below. First, Mr. Scott did not dispute the amount of taxes owed when he signed the agreement, and he brought no evidence to the conference to support a different amount. Second, as explained to Mr. Scott at the informal conference, the precise amount of the balloon payment can only be established in the 12th month. This is because the exact amount depends on the dealer's compliance with the agreement over the preceding 11 months, and the amount of interest, penalties, and/or other fees that may have accrued during the preceding year. Third, there is no evidence that the dealer was confused when a due date for a payment fell on a weekend or holiday. Even if it was confused, reference to section 212.11(1)(e) and (f) would answer this question. Fourth, there is no statute or rule that requires the Department to specify how the delinquent payments are allocated. Moreover, neither Mr. Scott nor the controller requested that such an allocation be incorporated into the agreement before it was signed. Finally, the issue of filing electronically already has been addressed in Finding of Fact 22 and Endnote 3. At hearing, Respondent's controller testified that she was out of town when the conference was held, suggesting that Mr. Scott, who is not an accountant, was at a disadvantage when he attended the informal conference. However, Respondent had six weeks' notice before the conference, and there is no evidence that Respondent requested that the meeting be rescheduled to a more convenient day. Also, Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Scott was authorized to represent its interests at the conference, or that he could have been briefed by the controller before attending the informal conference or signing the compliance agreement. See also Endnote 1. Notably, at hearing, the controller testified that she "was involved in actually negotiating the agreement both before and after it was actually signed" even though she did not attend the conference. Tr. at 89. Respondent also contends that after the Department considered the compliance agreement to be breached, the dealer had no further obligation to make payments pursuant to the agreement or state law until the parties negotiated a new agreement. Aside from Respondent's failure to cite any authority to support this proposition, nothing in the compliance agreement comports with this assertion. To the contrary, the compliance agreement specifically provides that if a breach occurs, the entire tax liability becomes due immediately. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ G. Thus, Respondent is obligated to pay the entire tax liability, which now exceeds $200,000.00. All other arguments raised by Respondent have been carefully considered and are rejected as being without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39- 8011930243-9. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is subject to tax based on a lease or license to use real property pursuant to Sections 212.031, 212.054, and 212.55, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Jack and Joan Peoples bought and began operating a bait and tackle shop/fish camp in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, in approximately 1971. The name of the business was Clark's Fish Camp and Seafood. As the business grew, Mr. and Mrs. Peoples began operating a restaurant in the shop. Initially, they lived on the business premises in an apartment adjoining the shop. When the restaurant became more successful, the restaurant was enlarged to include the apartment area and the family bought a home at another location. In January 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Peoples incorporated their business as a Florida Subchapter S Corporation. Pursuant to the organizational minutes, Mr. Peoples was elected president and Mrs. Peoples was elected vice-president and secretary. Petitioner issued common stock to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples as the sole shareholders, each owning a 50 percent interest, in exchange for the good will and name of Clark's Fish Camp and Seafood. Mr. and Mrs. Peoples did not transfer any real property, fixtures, or equipment to Petitioner. At all times material to this case, Mr. and Mrs. Peoples or Mrs. Peoples, in her sole capacity, owned the real property and fixtures utilized by Petitioner in the operation of the restaurant business. At all times relevant here, Mrs. Peoples acted as hostess, cook, and/or manager for the business. She controlled Petitioner's checkbook along with her kitchen manager, Florence Hatfield, and general manager, Steve Morris. During the audit at issue here, Russ Deeter, an accountant, and his associate/former employee, Maxine Downs were responsible for performing all of Petitioner's formal bookkeeping. Mr. Deeter had served as Petitioner's bookkeeper since the early 1970s. He sold his accounting business to Ms. Downs in 1981, but he continued to assist her with the routine bookkeeping for certain clients including Petitioner. Pursuant to the arrangement between Mr. Deeter and Ms. Downs, she created a general ledger in a computer using Petitioner's checkbook, sales receipts, invoices, etc., as source documents. The source documents were then returned to Petitioner. Additionally, Mr. Deeter prepared state and federal tax returns for Petitioner and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples. Mrs. Peoples maintained all of the source documents for Petitioner's business records in a construction trailer/office located behind the restaurant on the property's highest ground. Because the property was prone to flooding, Petitioner placed the source documents and other business records on shelves in the trailer/office. The only file cabinets in the office were used to store restaurant supplies. On or about October 28, 1998, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records for sales and use taxes for the period October 1, 1993, to September 30, 1998. The notice also advised Petitioner that Respondent intended to conduct an audit of Petitioner's corporate intangible taxes for the period January 1, 1994, to January 1, 1998. The audit was scheduled to commence some time after December 28, 1998. In the meantime, Mr. Peoples became so ill that Mrs. Peoples closed their home and moved into a mobile home located on the business property. This move allowed Mrs. Peoples to oversee the restaurant business while she nursed her husband. Mr. Peoples died in March 1999. Thereafter, Mrs. Peoples became Petitioner's sole owner. Mrs. Peoples receives a bi-weekly salary from Petitioner in the amount of $3,000. She also makes draws from its bank account to pay business and personal expenses on an as-needed basis. Mrs. Peoples has an eighth grade education. However, she is, in large part, responsible for the success of Petitioner, which during the audit period grossed between $2,500,000 and $3,000,000 a year. Mrs. Peoples asserts that she does not remember signing any tax returns but admits that she signs documents without examining them when requested to do so by Mr. Deeter. By letter dated March 24, 1999, Respondent advised Petitioner that it was rescinding the October 28, 1998, Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records and replacing it with a new notice. The new Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records dated March 24, 1999, included an examination of Petitioner's charter city systems surtax for the period March 1, 1994, through February 28, 1999; Petitioner's sales and use tax from March 1, 1994, through February 28, 1999; and Petitioner's intangible personal property tax from January 1, 1995, through January 1, 1999. The new notice stated that the audit would begin on or before May 24, 1999. On May 23, 1999, Petitioner requested a postponement of the audit due to the death of Mr. Peoples. As a result of this request, Respondent postponed the audit until January 10, 2000. On May 25, 1999, Mrs. Peoples signed a Power of Attorney for Mr. Deeter to represent the business during the audit. In anticipation of the audit, Mrs. Peoples and her staff began going through the source documents stored in the trailer/office. Mr. Deeter also gathered pertinent records and computer printouts. All documents required for the audit were placed in boxes or sacks on the floor of the trailer/office. In September of 1999, Petitioner's property flooded due to a hurricane. The water rose above the elevated entrance to the trailer/office. Mrs. Peoples and Petitioner's employees made no effort to protect the documents on the floor of the trailer/office from the floodwaters. Petitioner's September 1999 insurance claims due to flood loss do not contain a claim for loss of documentation. The 1999 flood loss claims were small in comparison to the flood loss claims for 2001 even though the 1999 floodwaters rose high enough to destroy the records. Record evidence indicates that the trailer/office has flooded on more than one occasion. In September 1999, all of the documents on the floor of the office were destroyed. Subsequently, Mrs. Peoples and Ms. Hatfield disposed of the documents, including but not limited to, the printouts of the general ledger, bank statements, and cancelled checks. On January 7, 2000, Petitioner requested another postponement of the audit until July 1, 2000. Petitioner made the request due to the death of Ms. Downs in December 1999. After her death, Mr. Deeter discovered that Ms. Downs' computer and all backup tapes located in her home office were either stolen or otherwise unaccounted for. The missing computer records included Petitioner's bookkeeping records for the audit period at issue here. On January 15, 2000, Petitioner agreed to extend the time for Respondent to perform the audit. The agreement stated that Respondent could issue an assessment at any time before October 28, 2001. On July 6, 2000, Respondent issued a formal demand for Petitioner to produce certain records. The only records available were Mr. Deeter's own work papers, post-September 1999 materials that had not been placed in the trailer/office prior to the flood, or records prepared after the flood and death of Ms. Downs. On July 17, 2000, the parties signed an Audit Agreement. The agreement states that the audit of sales of tangible personal property would be controlled by the sampling method. On July 17, 2000, Mr. Deeter informed Respondent that Petitioner's records covering the period from 1993 through the middle of 1999 were not available because a flood had damaged them in September 1999. However, using his work papers, Mr. Deeter was able to provide Respondent with copies of some of the original federal tax returns that he had prepared for Petitioner and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples. During the hearing, Mr. Deeter asserted that he had delivered the original tax returns to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples who had the responsibility to sign, date, and file them with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the appropriate times. Mrs. Peoples testified that she could not remember signing any returns. She believed that Mr. Deeter had assumed responsibility for filing the returns. The unsigned and undated copies of the returns that Mr. Deeter provided Respondent on July 17, 2000, included Petitioner's U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation (Form 1120S) for 1996, 1997, and 1998. These returns showed that Petitioner took the following deductions from income for a lease expense: (a) 1996--$225,546; (b) 1997--$332,791; and 1998--$290,493. These are the amounts that Respondent seeks to tax as rent. Mr. Deeter also provided Respondent with an unsigned and undated copy of Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1998 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040). The return included both pages of Schedule E showing rents received from Petitioner. On July 28, 2000, Mr. Deeter provided Respondent with revised copies of Petitioner's 1120S forms and revised copies of Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1040 forms. The auditor's file does not contain copies of the revised returns because the auditor did not accept them. The record also indicates that Mr. Deeter did not want to leave the revised returns with Respondent because they were not copies of the original returns. During the hearing, Mr. Deeter testified that he furnished Respondent with revised returns to show that there was no difference in the amount of federal income tax due and payable by Mr. and Mrs. Peoples regardless of whether Petitioner reported a lease expense or a distribution of profit on its 1120S forms and regardless of whether Mr. and Mrs. Peoples reported Petitioner's income as rent received or a profit distribution on their 1040 forms. According to Mr. Deeter, he prepared the revised 1120S returns using his pencil copies of the original handwritten returns because he had never used a computer software program to prepare 1120S forms. Mr. Deeter had a computer software program to prepare 1040 forms, so he used that program to generate the revised 1040 returns. However, Mr. Deeter's testimony that the revised returns were drafts showing Petitioner's deduction of a lease expense and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' receipt of rent is not persuasive. In November 2000, Respondent obtained copies of Petitioner's 1120S forms and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1040 forms for 1994 and 1995 from the IRS. The IRS did not have copies of these returns for the years 1996 through 1999. However, there is record evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Peoples paid some income taxes for all years in question. The record does not contain copies of the 1994 and 1995 returns. Competent evidence indicates that, consistent with Respondent's routine practice, the auditor reviewed the 1040 and 1120S forms and returned them to the IRS without making copies for Respondent's file. Based on the auditor's review of Petitioner's 1120S returns, Respondent seeks to tax Petitioner for lease expense in the amounts of $152,782.24 in 1994 and $220,355.85 in 1995. During the hearing, Mr. Deeter conceded that he prepared Petitioner's 1120S forms for 1994 and 1995 showing deductions for a lease expense and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1040 forms showing rent received from Petitioner. His testimony that he prepared all returns in subsequent years showing no lease expense for Petitioner and profit distributions instead of rent received for Mr. and Mrs. Peoples is not persuasive. In November 2000, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes. The notice made no adjustment with respect to Petitioner's reported taxable sales. The only adjustment was based on lease payments from Petitioner to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples as consideration for the rent of the building and fixtures utilized by Petitioner in the conduct of its business. On January 26, 2001, Mr. Deeter had an audit conference with Respondent's staff. During the conference, Mr. Deeter requested that Respondent review Petitioner's amended 1120S forms for the years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. The amended 1120S returns did not include deductions for a lease expense. Respondent would not accept the amended returns, but informed Mr. Deeter that it would review the amended returns if he could document that they had been filed with the IRS. On March 7, 2001, the IRS stamped the amended 1120S forms for 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 as having been received. Mrs. Peoples had signed the returns as Petitioner's president but she did not date her signatures. Mr. Deeter testified that his wife, Roberta Lawson, signed the amended 1120S returns as the tax preparer. Mrs. Lawson's purported signatures on the forms were dated appropriately for each tax year. However, Mrs. Lawson did not testify at the hearing. Mr. Deeter's testimony that the returns filed with the IRS on March 7, 2001, after the audit was completed were, in fact, exact copies of the returns that he and his wife prepared for Petitioner each year and provided to Respondent on July 17, 2000, is not persuasive. After receiving the amended 1120S returns, Respondent decided not to consider them in the audit because they were self-serving. On August 6, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment of sales and use tax and charter transit system surtax. By letter dated October 2, 2001, Petitioner filed a timely informal protest of the proposed assessment. Petitioner asserted that it had never paid any rent to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples. On January 29, 2002, Respondent issued a Notice of Decision upholding the proposed assessments. However, Petitioner never received this notice. Therefore, Respondent reissued the Notice of Decision without any additional changes on August 14, 2002. During discovery, Petitioner provided Respondent with unsigned and undated copies of Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1040 forms for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. These returns show taxable income derived from an S corporation on line 17, passive income and losses from Petitioner on page 2 of Schedule E, and depreciation on Form 4562. In other words, the returns reflect corporate distributions of profit from Petitioner and do not reference any income from rental real estate. Mr. Deeter's testimony during hearing that the 1040 returns provided to Respondent during discovery are exact copies of the original 1040 returns is not persuasive. As of December 12, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Peoples had not filed 1040 returns for the years 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, or 1996 with the IRS. The audit at issue here was based on the best information provided at the time of the audit. Respondent completed the audit on or about January 26, 2001. Petitioner does not assert that the calculation of the assessment was in error. Instead, Petitioner protests that any assessment is due. Petitioner could have requested its bank to provide it with copies of its statements and cancelled checks for the relevant period. Petitioner did not make such a request and Respondent was not under an obligation to do so. There is no evidence that a written lease for Petitioner to use Mr. and Mrs. People's property ever existed. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner leased the restaurant property from Mr. and Mrs. Peoples for all relevant years. Mr. Deeter is an experienced accountant with over 30 years of experience. Petitioner and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples relied upon Mr. Deeter's advice as to what, if any, taxes should be paid on the lease. Armed with all of the necessary information, Mr. Deeter gave Petitioner obviously erroneous advice concerning the tax consequences associated with Petitioner leasing the property and paying 100 percent of its profits as consideration for the lease. To compound the problem, Mrs. Peoples negligently failed to ensure that Petitioner's business records, gathered specifically in anticipation of Respondent's audit, were safely preserved from hurricane floodwaters. Petitioner has had no previous tax compliance difficulties. It has not been subject to prior audits or assessments. Even so, the facts of this case indicate that Petitioner and Mr. and Ms. Peoples did not exercise ordinary care and prudence in complying with the revenue laws of Florida. Mr. Deeter testified that the fair market value or reasonable consideration for the lease is an amount equivalent to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' depreciation. According to the depreciation schedules, which accompanied the 1040 forms provided to Respondent during discovery, the annual cost for the use of the property and fixtures were as follows: (a) 1996--$98,296; (b) 1997--$104,840; and (c) 1998--$114,106 ($179,554 less a one time extraordinary loss of $65,448 due to flood damage). Mr. Deeter also testified that using the information on the 1040 forms for 1996, the depreciation expense for 1994 and 1995 can be computed as follows: (a) 1994--$63,000 to $67,000; and (b) 1995--$77,000 to $79,000. Mr. Deeter's testimony that the fair market value of the lease is equivalent to the depreciation set forth on 1040 returns never filed with the IRS is not persuasive. Mr. Deeter testified that an estimate of reasonable net profits for a corporation of similar size and make-up could be determined by reference to ratio profiles prepared by Robert Morris and Associates. Mr. Deeter's testimony regarding average profit distributions to shareholders of similarly situated corporations and reasonable profit distributions for Petitioner are speculative and not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order upholding the tax assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: David B. Ferebee, Esquire Post Office Box 1796 Jacksonville, Florida 32201-1796 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 R. Lynn Lovejoy, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners owe the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Department of Revenue based upon Petitioners’ alleged rental of their real property to a related corporation from June 2000 through August 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: In July 1997, Petitioners acquired the real property located at 640 North Semoran Boulevard in Orlando, Florida (hereafter “the Property”). The Property was acquired in Petitioners’ individual capacities, and they financed the purchase of the Property through a loan secured by a mortgage on the Property. The documents relating to the 1997 loan and mortgage were not introduced at the hearing. At the time the Property was acquired, Petitioner Paul Solano was engaged in the practice of accounting through a sole proprietorship known as P. Solano and Associates. Mr. Solano has been practicing accounting in Florida since 1969 and he is familiar with Florida's sales tax laws. The Property was treated as an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship even though he was not using it as his place of business at the time. For example, depreciation expense related to the Property was itemized on Petitioners’ tax returns as a business expense. The mortgage payments made by Petitioners were also treated as business expenses of the sole proprietorship. In October 1999, Mr. Solano incorporated his accounting practice into an entity known as Solano & Associates Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter “the Corporation”). The sole business of the Corporation is providing accounting services. At the time of its formation, the Corporation was owned in equal 20 percent shares by Mr. Solano, his wife (Petitioner Diane Solano), their two daughters, and their son-in-law. There has been no change in the ownership of the Corporation since its inception. Mr. Solano is the president of the Corporation. The other owners/family members are also officers in the Corporation. Once the Corporation was formed, the depreciation expense related to the Property was included on the Corporation's tax returns, not Petitioners' tax return. At the time the Property was purchased, it was zoned for residential use. Between 1997 and 1999, Petitioners took the necessary steps to get the Property rezoned for commercial use so that the Corporation could conduct its accounting practice from that location. In November 1999, after the property had been rezoned, the Corporation and its owners applied for a loan from First Union National Bank (First Union) to obtain the funds necessary to renovate the existing building on the Property. Although unclear from the documentation in the record, Petitioners both testified that the 1999 loan was effectively a refinancing of the 1997 loan. The Corporation was not able to obtain a loan in its own name because it had only been in existence for a short period of time. The owners of the Corporation were not able to obtain a loan at a favorable interest rate, primarily because of the lack of credit history of Petitioners’ daughters and son-in- law. As a result, the loan was obtained by Petitioners in their individual capacities. Petitioners gave a mortgage on the Property as collateral for the 1999 loan. The mortgage document, entitled “Mortgage and Absolute Assignment of Leases” (hereafter "the 1999 mortgage"), was signed by Petitioners in their individual capacities on November 18, 1999; the Corporation was not identified in the 1999 mortgage in any way. The 1999 mortgage includes boiler-plate language referring to Petitioners’ obligation to maintain and enforce any leases on the Property and requiring the assignment of rents from any such leases to First Union. That language cannot be construed to mean that a lease actually existed at the time; in fact, the Property was still undergoing renovations at the time. The Corporation began doing business from the Property in February 2000 after the renovation work was complete and a certificate of occupancy was issued. The 1999 loan was refinanced in May 2000 with First Union. The loan amount was increased from $145,000 to $200,000 and the term of the loan was extended through a document entitled “Mortgage and Loan Modification and Extension Agreement” (hereafter "the 2000 mortgage"). The 2000 mortgage refers to the Corporation as the borrower and refers to Petitioners as the guarantors. Petitioners signed the 2000 mortgage in their individual capacities (to bind themselves as guarantors) as well as their capacities as corporate officers (to bind the Corporation as borrower). The related promissory note, dated May 5, 2000, also refers to the Corporation as the borrower, and it is signed by Petitioners in their capacity as officers of the Corporation. As part of the documentation for the refinancing in 2000, Petitioners executed an “Affidavit of Business Use” in which they attested they were the owners of the Property and that the loan proceeds would be “utilized exclusively for business or commercial purposes and not for personal use.” Petitioners also executed a “Mortgagors" Affidavit” in which they attested that they were in sole possession of the Property and that no other persons have claims or rights to possession of the property “except Solano & Associates Enterprises by virtue of a written lease which does not have an option to purposes or right of first refusal.” The monthly mortgage payment for the refinanced loan was $2,044.91. That amount was due on the fifth day of each month beginning on June 5, 2000, and it was automatically deducted from the Corporation’s bank account with First Union. In addition to making the mortgage payment for the Property, the Corporation paid the ad valorem taxes, insurance, and related expenses. The amount of those payments is not quantified in the record. Petitioners formally deeded the Property to the Corporation in October 2003. Mrs. Solano testified that the failure to do so earlier was simply an “oversight.” When the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation, Petitioners did not report any income or loss on the transaction for tax purposes. Any equity that had accumulated in the Property was simply “given” to the Corporation. The First Union mortgages were satisfied in October 2003 as part of a refinancing done by the Corporation with SunTrust bank after it became the owner of the Property.1 At that point, the Corporation had been in existence long enough to establish a credit history and obtain financing in its own name. The record does not include any documentation related to the 2003 refinancing transaction. Despite the representation in the “Mortgagors’ Affidavit” quoted above, there has never been any written or oral lease between Petitioners and the Corporation with respect to the use of the Property. Petitioners have always considered the Property to be a business asset, initially an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship and then an asset of the Corporation. Petitioners never collected any sales tax from the Corporation on the mortgage payments made by the Corporation. Petitioners did not consider those payments to be rental payments. In late-June or early-July 2003, the Department sent a letter to Petitioners stating that the Property “appears to be subject to sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212.031, Florida Statutes.” The letter was sent as part of the Department’s “Corporation Rent Project” through which the Department compares records in various databases to identify commercial properties whose owner of record is different from the business operating at that location. Included with the letter was a questionnaire soliciting information from Petitioners regarding the Property and its use. The questionnaire was completed by Mr. Solano and returned to the Department in a timely manner. Mr. Solano marked a box on the questionnaire indicating that the Property is “[o]ccupied by a corporation in which a corporate officer is the property owner,” and he identified the Corporation as the entity occupying the Property. In response to the question as to “which of the following considerations are received by you,” Mr. Solano marked the following boxes: “The corporation remits payment for the mortgage loan”; “I do not receive rental income, but the related entity pays the mortgage payments”; and “No consideration is received from this related entity.” In response to the questions regarding the “monthly gross rental income of the property” and the “amount of real estate taxes . . . paid on the property by the lessee” for 2000 through 2003, Mr. Solano answered $0 for all periods. Terry Milligan, a tax specialist with the Department, determined based upon Mr. Solano’s responses on the questionnaire that the Corporation’s use of the Property was subject to the sales tax on rentals. Mr. Milligan advised Petitioners of that determination by letter dated July 29, 2003. The letter requested that Petitioners provide “a detailed month by month breakdown of rent (or mortgage payment) amounts, any other consideration, and property taxes that you received from the tenant (or tenant paid on your behalf) for the last thirty-six (36) months).” (Emphasis in original). Petitioners responded to Mr. Milligan’s request through a letter dated August 11, 2003. The letter explained that the reason that the title to the Property appeared under Petitioners’ name rather than the Corporation's name is “due to credit history.” More specifically, the letter stated that “[i]t was decided by the Board members, my wife and our [] children, to put it under our name since we have a long history of good credit.” Included with the letter was a bank statement showing the monthly mortgage payment of $2,044.91 and a notice of the proposed property tax assessment from Orange County for the Property, which was addressed to the Corporation. In addition to providing the requested documentation to Mr. Milligan, one of Petitioners’ daughters, Joylynn Aviles, spoke with Mr. Milligan to explain the circumstances relating to the financing and use of the Property. Ms. Aviles is the Secretary of the Corporation. Ms. Aviles also spoke with Mr. Milligan’s supervisor and an individual in the Department’s legal division. When it became apparent that the matter could not be resolved informally, Ms. Aviles requested that Mr. Milligan issue a final assessment so that Petitioners could bring a formal protest. In response, the Department issued the NOFA on September 11, 2003. The NOFA was preceded by a spreadsheet dated September 3, 2003, which showed how Mr. Milligan calculated the tax, penalties, and interest amounts set forth in the NOFA. As described in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and his testimony at the hearing, the tax was computed based upon the monthly mortgage payments of $2044.91 made by the Corporation from June 2000 to August 2003. The June 2000 start-date for the assessment corresponds to the 36-month period referred to in Mr. Milligan’s July 29, 2003, letter; it also happens to correspond to the date that Corporation began making the mortgage payments. The August 2003 end-date for the assessment was used because it was the month preceding the date of the NOFA. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include the period between August 2003 and October 2003 when the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation. The NOFA does not include any assessment for the property taxes, insurance or other expenses paid by the Corporation on the Property. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include those amounts. The sales tax rate in effect in Orange County during the assessment period was six percent from June 2000 through December 2002, and it was 6.5 percent from January 2003 through August 2003. The 0.5 percent increase resulted from the imposition of a county surtax of some kind. The NOFA calculated a total tax due of $4,784.91. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated by multiplying the monthly mortgage payment by the tax rate in effect at the time of the payment and then totaling those monthly amounts. The NOFA calculated $465.79 in interest due on the unpaid tax through September 13, 2003. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated at the applicable statutory rates. Interest continues to accrue at 53 cents per day. The NOFA calculated a penalty due of $2,233.97. That amount was calculated based upon the applicable statutory rate as shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and explained in the NOFA. In total, the NOFA imposed an assessment of $7,566.43. That amount includes the taxes, interest, and penalties described above. The NOFA informed Petitioners of the procedure by which they could protest the Department's assessment. On November 10, 2003, the Department received Petitioners' timely protest of the assessment. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order rescinding the Notice of Final Assessment issued to Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 17th day of March 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner purchased a used car in Florida in May of 1983 and paid 5 percent sales tax. Petitioner did not title said car in the State of Florida. When Petitioner returned to Maryland, his state of residence, Maryland imposed a 5 percent tax on said car when Petitioner titled said car. Petitioner applied for a sales tax refund to the Department of Revenue in the amount of $225.00. Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to deny said refund application on December 1, 1983. From the exhibits to which the parties stipulated, additional facts are found by the Hearing Officer. A bill of sale indicates that Petitioner purchased a 1979 Buick Regal from Eddy Auto Sales on May 14, 1983. A temporary registration and receipt issued by the State of Maryland on June 17, 1983, shows that Petitioner paid a "title tax" of $222.50 to the State of Maryland. By letter dated January 27, 1984, Agnes Stoicos of the Maryland Department of Transportation indicates that the Maryland tax is a 5 percent excise tax upon the issuance of all original and subsequent certificates of title, and the tax is used primarily for the construction and the maintenance of the Maryland highway system.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent properly conducted a sales and use tax audit of Petitioner's books and records; and, if so, whether Petitioner is liable for tax and interest on its purchases of materials used for improvements to real property.
Findings Of Fact During the audit period, Petitioner was a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 7820 Professional Place, Suite 2, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's Florida sales tax number was 39-00-154675-58, and Petitioner's federal employer identification number was 59-3089046. After the audit period, the Florida Department of State administratively dissolved Petitioner for failure to file statutorily required annual reports and filing fees. Petitioner engaged in the business of providing engineering services and fabricating control panels. Petitioner fabricated control panels in a shop Petitioner maintained on its business premises. Petitioner sold some of the control panels in over-the- counter sales. Petitioner properly collected and remitted sales tax on the control panels that Petitioner sold over-the-counter. Petitioner used other control panels in the performance of real property contracts by installing the panels as improvements to real property (contested panels). Petitioner was the ultimate consumer of the materials that Petitioner purchased and used to fabricate the contested panels. At the time that Petitioner installed the contested panels into real property, the contested panels became improvements to the real property. Petitioner failed to pay sales tax at the time Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate the contested panels. Petitioner provided vendors with Petitioner's resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax, when Petitioner purchased the materials used to fabricate the contested panels. None of the purchase transactions for materials used to fabricate the contested panels were tax exempt. The audit is procedurally correct. The amount of the assessment is accurate. On October 23, 2000, Respondent issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (form DR-840), for audit number A0027213470, for the period of October 1, 1995, through September 30, 2000. During an opening interview, the parties discussed the audit procedures and sampling method to be employed and the records to be examined. Based upon the opening interview, Respondent prepared an Audit Agreement and presented it to an officer and owner of the taxpayer. Respondent began the audit of Petitioner's books and records on January 22, 2001. On March 9, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (original Notice of Intent). At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted an audit conference with Petitioner. At the audit conference, Petitioner provided documentation that the assessed transactions involved improvements to real property. At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted a second audit conference with Petitioner's former legal counsel. Petitioner authorized its former legal counsel to act on its behalf during the audit. At the second audit conference, the parties discussed audit procedures and sampling methods, Florida use tax, fabricated items, and fabrication costs. Respondent revised the audit findings based upon additional information from Petitioner that the assessed transactions involved fabricated items of tangible personal property that became improvements to real property. Respondent assessed use tax on the materials used to fabricate control panels in those instances where Petitioner failed to document that Petitioner paid sales tax at the time of the purchase. Respondent also assessed use tax on fabrication costs including the direct labor and the overhead costs associated with the fabrication process, for the period of October 1, 1995, through June 30, 1999. Respondent eliminated use tax assessed on cleaning services in the original Notice of Intent because the amount of tax was de minimis. On August 29, 2001, Respondent issued a Revised Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Revised Notice of Intent). On September 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until January 25, 2002. On October 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a second Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until April 25, 2002. On February 6, 2002, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment for additional sales and use tax, in the amount of $21,822.27; interest through February 6, 2002, in the amount of $10,774.64; penalty in the amount of $10,831.12; and additional interest that accrues at $6.97 per diem. Petitioner exhausted the informal remedies available from Respondent. On April 29, 2002, Petitioner filed a formal written protest that, in substantial part, objected to the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit. Respondent issued a Notice of Decision sustaining the assessment of tax, penalty, and interest. Respondent correctly determined that the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit were appropriate and consistent with Respondent's statutes and regulations. Respondent concluded that the assessment was correct based upon the best available information and that Petitioner failed to provide any documentation to refute the audit findings. Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration that did not provide any additional facts, arguments, or records to support its position. On May 16, 2003, Respondent issued a Notice of Reconsideration sustaining the assessment of tax and interest in full, but compromising all penalties based upon reasonable cause.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for relief and sustaining Respondent's assessment of taxes and interest in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 10th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Michael E. Ferguson Control Design Engineering, Inc. 809 East Bloomingdale Avenue, PMB 433 Brandon, Florida 33511 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether Petitioners are liable for sales and use tax, penalty, and interest as assessed by the Department of Revenue (the Department)?
Findings Of Fact Salma is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 2231 Del Prado Boulevard, Cape Coral, Florida, 33990. Gausia is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 11571 Gladiolus Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, 33908. Petitioners are in the business of operating gas stations with convenience stores. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida and is authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. Petitioners were selected for audit because their reported gross sales were less than the total cost of items purchased (inventory) for the audit period. The Department issued Salma and Gausia each a Notice of Intent to Conduct a Limited Scope Audit or Self-Audit, dated April 26, 2013, for sales and use tax, for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2013 (collectively referred to as the Notices). The Notices requested that Petitioners provide the Department: (a) a list of all their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) their total purchases of alcohol and tobacco, by vendor, for the period July 2010 to June 2011; (c) copies of their federal tax returns for the examination period; (d) purchase receipts for all purchases for the last complete calendar month; and (e) daily register (Z tapes) for the last complete calendar month. The Notices gave Petitioners 60 days to gather the requested documents before the audit was to commence. The Notices also requested that Petitioners complete an attached Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet. In response to the Notices, Petitioners requested a 30- day extension of time until July 18, 2013, to provide the requested documents and to designate a Power of Attorney. Petitioners did not provide the Department any books and records for inspection, nor did they complete and return the questionnaire and self analysis worksheets. As a result, the Department's auditor determined the sales tax due based upon the best information available. To calculate an estimated assessment of sales tax, the Department used the purchase data of Petitioners' wholesalers and distributors of alcoholic beverages and tobacco, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011; the 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and in-store sales percentages of alcoholic beverage and tobacco products; and historical audit data. After reviewing the purchase data for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, and for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012, the Department's auditor determined that the data was missing a few vendors. As a result, the Department's auditor estimated the amount of Petitioners' cigarette purchases, based on historical audit data that shows that cigarette sales are generally 4.31 times more than beer sales. The Department's auditor and audit supervisor testified that the estimated gross sales seemed reasonable and consistent with the national averages and the purchase data for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. The Department estimated gross sales (i.e., the retail sale value of the goods sold) by marking up the taxable sales and exempt sales reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners. For example, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Salma purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $148,826.15, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $189,009.21. For July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Gausia purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $132,138.65, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $167,816.09. The Department's markup on the alcoholic beverage and tobacco products is reasonable because the Department's auditor testified that he used a combination of 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and the competitive pricing and information from audits of other convenience stores. The Department determined that the exemption ratio reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners was extremely high for their industry. The Department used an exemption ratio of 15 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry, to calculate Petitioners' estimated taxable sales. A review of Petitioners' sales and use tax returns revealed that they did not apply the tax bracket system to their taxable sales transactions, as required under sections 212.12(9) and (10), Florida Statutes. Instead, Petitioners remitted sales tax on their taxable sales based on their gross receipts at a flat tax rate. The Department's auditor testified that this method of reporting tax is inappropriate and does not accurately reflect the sales activity of the business. The Department calculated the average effective tax rate of 6.0856 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry. To calculate the estimated tax due, the Department multiplied the effective tax rate by the estimated taxable sales and gave Petitioners credit for any tax remitted with their tax returns. The Department issued Salma a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149872. The Department issued Gausia a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149749. The Department assessed Petitioners sales tax on their sales of alcoholic beverages and tobacco. The Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes gave Petitioners 30 days to request a conference with the auditor or audit supervisor, to dispute the proposed changes. Petitioners did not make such a request. The Department issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) to Salma on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $159,282.26; for penalty in the sum of $39,820.57; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $27,772.36. The Department issued a NOPA to Gausia on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $213,754.46; for penalty in the sum of $53,438.62; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $36,921.79. Additional interest accrues at $30.55 per day until the tax is paid. The NOPAs became final assessments on May 5, 2014. After filing a request for an administrative hearing, Petitioners completed the Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet and produced the following documents to the Department: (a) a list of all of their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) a list of vendors for alcohol and tobacco, for the examination period of July 2010 to June 2011; (c) a summary of their taxable sales, for the period February 2010 through December 2012; (d) copies of their federal tax returns, for the tax years 2010 through 2013; (e) copies of its purchase receipts for the months of July 2013; and (f) copies of their daily register (Z-tapes) for the month of July 2013. The Department's auditor testified that aside from being untimely, the records and information provided by Petitioners during these proceedings were not reliable because Petitioners did not provide any source documents that would allow the Department to reconcile the reported figures and confirm the supplied information. In addition, the purchase receipts and Z- tapes were not relevant because they were from outside of the audit period. The Z-tapes are also unreliable because the manager of the convenience store testified at the final hearing that employees purposely and routinely entered taxable sales into the cash registers as tax exempt sales. Petitioners argue that the Department did not use the best information available when estimating the taxes due. Petitioners claim that because their businesses are combination gas station/convenience stores, the national data for standalone convenience stores is inapplicable. However, notably absent from Petitioners' testimony or evidence was any alternative data upon which the Department could have relied for more accurate estimates.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioners' requests for relief and assessing, in full, the Department's assessments of sales tax, penalty, and interest against both Salma and Gausia. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2015.
