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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Associated Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation duly authorized to transact business in the State of Florida, having an office in Daytona, Florida, and doing business in Florida itself, or through its wholly owned subsidiaries. (Petition) Petitioner, on a consolidated basis with its subsidiaries, duly filed its Florida corporation income tax returns for the fiscal years ending December 31, 1977, and December 31, 1978. (Petition) The Florida Department of Revenue, after audit of these returns, alleged a deficiency in both years totaling $1,247.00. In both fiscal years in question and pursuant to Section 220.13(1)(b) 3, Florida Statutes, a "New Jobs Credit" of 100,000 was taken by Petitioner for each year. During each of such years the amount of wages and salaries paid or incurred by Petitioner within the State of Florida for each of the taxable years in question exceeded $100,000, but the maximum credit applicable pursuant to the U. S. Internal Revenue Code is $100,000, such limitation being adopted in Section 220.13(1)(b)3, Florida Statutes. (Petition, Exhibit 1) Respondent's audit of Petitioner's returns resulted in adjustments producing the alleged tax deficiency by reducing Petitioner's deductions for "New Jobs Credit" under Section 220.13(1)(b)3, Florida Statutes, to $92,396.00 in 1977 and $51,742.00 in 1978. The reduction of these deductions was based upon application of Respondent's Rule 12C-1.13(1)(b)3, Florida Administrative Code, which limits the deduction for salaries and wages paid in creating new jobs in Florida to a prorata amount of the total expended in all states for which credit is given under Section 280C of the Federal Internal Revenue Code. Since Petitioner expended $222,437.00 in such wages and salaries in Florida in 1977, with a total of $240,759.00 being expended by it everywhere, it was allowed only some ninety-two percent of the federal maximum of $100,000 for New Jobs Credit as a deduction on its tax return. Similarly, in 1978, it was allowed about fifty-one percent since its Florida expenditures amounted to $221,656.00 for new jobs, and a total everywhere, of $428,386.09. (Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That the petition herein be DISMISSED and that the tax deficiency against Petitioner be appropriately enforced. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 23rd day of March 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David C. Latham, Esquire Post Office Box 17711 Orlando, Florida 32860 Randy Miller, Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is engaged in the cattle business and sells these cattle to in-state and out-of-state buyers who purchase the cattle at Clewiston, Florida, and have them transported either by the purchaser's own equipment or by a commercial carrier to their in-state or out-of-state destination. Those sales determined to be out-of-state sales are not included in the numerator of the fraction used to compute what percentage of Petitioner's income results from Florida sales and is therefore subject to Florida income tax. In making the determination respecting out-of-state sales Respondent applies the destination test if the cattle are shipped by common carrier but treats all other carriers as agents of the buyer to whom the cattle are delivered at Clewiston, thereby making such sales in-state sales. It is this policy determination which Petitioner contends is a rule. The policy has not been promulgated in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and, if this interpretation constitutes a rule, it is invalid because it was never promulgated as required. In determining whether certain sales are subject to the Florida sales tax, the Legislature in Section 212.06(5)(a), Florida Statutes, excluded from tax that tangible property imported or manufactured for export and provided such tangible property shall not be considered as being manufactured for export unless the manufacturer delivers the same to a licensed exporter for exporting or to a common carrier for shipment outside the State or mails the same by United States Mail to a destination outside the State. The rationale of the sales tax provision is used by Respondent in determining whether the sales are in-state sales for the purpose of computing Florida income tax. Respondent has promulgated, to its auditors, as a policy and as an interpretation of the statute, the directive to apply the destination test in determining out-of-state sales only when the merchandise sold is shipped by common carrier to a destination out of state. It is this policy determination or interpretation of the statutes that Petitioner contends is a rule and attacks in these proceedings. In the testimony Respondent acknowledged that this policy determination is uniformly applied. It also has application both within and outside the agency. Respondent further testified that if the merchandise (here cattle) had been delivered by Petitioner to the buyer outside the State of Florida by any means of transportation Petitioner chose, it would have treated the sale as an out-of-state sale.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Florida Welding Services Corp., is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue, is the agency charged with enforcing the taxing statutes of this State, including the Florida Income Tax Code, Chapter 220, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, the Petitioner is required to file a Florida Corporate Income Tax Return annually with the Respondent. The Return is due on the first day of the fourth month after the close of the tax year. The Petitioner's tax year for 1977 was April 1, 1976, through March 31, 1977. The Florida Corporation Income Tax Return for the 1977 tax year was due on July 1, 1977, and the Petitioner failed to file its Return by this date. The Petitioner's tax year for 1978 was April 1, 1977, through March 31, 1978. The Florida Corporation Income Tax Return for the 1978 tax year was due on July 1, 1978, and the Petitioner failed to file its Return by this date. In January 1977, all of the Petitioner's corporate records were seized, pursuant to a subpoena issued in the United States Federal District Court in and for the Southern District of Florida. (See Exhibit 1) The Petitioner's records were not returned to it for over a year. On September 15, 1978, the Petitioner filed a Tentative Income Tax Return and Application for Extension of Time to File Income Tax Return, wherein Petitioner requested an extension of time until November 15, 1978, in which to file its Florida income tax return for the 1977 and 1978 tax years. (See Exhibit 2) On October 5, 1978, the Department of Revenue denied the Petitioner's request for an extension of time on grounds that the request had been filed after the respective due dates of July 1, 1977, and July 1, 1978. (See Exhibit 2) On November 16, 1978, the Department of Revenue received Petitioner's Florida Corporation Income Tax Returns for the tax years 1977 and 1978. The Petitioner also remitted the tax it believed owing for each taxable year, $3,734.96 for 1977 and $6,803.56 for 1978. On February 2, 1979, the Department of Revenue, Corporate Income Tax Bureau, issued a Delinquent Notice of Tax Due to the Petitioner. The Notice indicated that the Petitioner had a balance due of $1,547.28 for the tax year ending March 31, 1977, which amount represented $933.74 penalty and $613.54 interest. (See Exhibit 3) On February 5, 1979, the Department of Revenue, Corporate Income Tax Bureau, issued a Delinquent Notice of Tax Due to the Petitioner. The Notice indicated that the Petitioner had a balance due of $1,986.43 for the tax year ending March 31, 1978, which amount represented $1,700.89 penalty and $285.54 interest. (See Exhibit 4) On March 15, 1979, Mr. Karl J. Leib, Jr., contacted the Department of Revenue on behalf of his client, the' Petitioner, requesting the Department to delay in issuing any tax warrants against the Petitioner until Mr. Leib had an opportunity to communicate with someone from the Department. (See Exhibit 5) A follow-up letter was sent by Mr. Leib to the Department on June 8, 1979. (See Exhibit 6) On April, 23, 1980, the Department of Revenue issued to the Petitioner a Final Notice and Demand for payment in the amount of $1,547.28. (See Exhibit 7) Although no Final Notice and Demand for payment in the amount of $1,986.43 was issued by the Department, the amount is still outstanding and the Department maintains that Petitioner owes this sum as well. It is the Petitioner's position that its inability to timely file its Florida Corporate Income Tax Returns was entirely due to factors beyond its control, i.e., the confiscation of its corporate records. The Petitioner maintains that it should not be assessed penalty and interest for late filing, as its failure to timely file was "due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect," as is provided for in Section 214.40(1), Florida Statutes. The Department's position is twofold. First, the Petitioner's failure to make a timely request for extension of time in which to file its return does constitute willful neglect. Second, that while Section 214.40(1), Florida Statutes, may provide the Department with some discretion in assessing penalties, there is no comparable provision for modifying interest payments and such amount is absolutely mandated by the statute for any late filed returns. In addition to the foregoing, along with the attached Exhibits, the undersigned hereby incorporate by reference and jointly offer as evidence those Exhibits attached to Petitioner's Request for Formal Proceedings. WHEREFORE, both parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer to consider the foregoing facts and exhibits, along with a Memoranda of Law to be filed by each party within 10 days of the filing of this Joint Stipulation, and to issue his Recommended Order, without the necessity of holding a formal hearing.
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 1984, the subject vessel, a 1969 sixty-five foot Hargrave Halmatic motor yacht, was purchased by Nelson Gross as President and principal of the corporation, Binghamton Too, Inc., for $457,500 in Houston Texas. It was financed through a Connecticut bank. The closing was held in Mr. Gross' New Jersey office. No sales or use tax has been paid on the yacht in Florida or in any other state. Mr. Gross' initial intent was to operate his new purchase as a commercial charter boat in conjunction with the "Binghamton," a ferryboat permanently moored and operating in Edgewater, New Jersey, as a floating restaurant. To get the new motor yacht there, Mr. Gross directed that it be brought to New Jersey around the Florida coast under its own power. The motor yacht reached Florida on February 17, 1984, but en route from Texas an unexpected vibration had arisen which required emergency repairs. These repairs were commissioned at Bradford Marine, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where the motor yacht remained, except for sea trials in connection with the vibration problem, until the first week in April, 1984. A cracked strut was diagnosed as the cause of the vibration problem. Repair costs of this emergency problem totalled $5,975. The balance of charges incurred at Bradford Marine, Ft. Lauderdale, was $21,729, including dockage. Many more of the repairs catalogued by Respondent's Exhibit 5, the Bradford Marine records for this period, were clearly voluntary, discretionary, and cosmetic in nature. The majority were of a non-emergency nature. The vessel, by then relettered "Binghamton Too," left Florida waters approximately April 20, 1984. "Binghamton Too" next spent approximately three weeks at Thunderbolt Marine Industries in Georgia at an approximate cost of $12,000. There, a strap was fabricated to hold the strut and the yacht proceeded on to New Jersey. The "Binghamton Too" began its charter business as part of the "Binghamton" operation in Edgewater, New Jersey on May 5, 1984. Seventy-five to eighty charters were accomplished between May, 1984 and October, 1984 under New Jersey state and local chartering, transit liquor, and environmental licenses and under U.S. Corps of Engineers permits. "Binghamton Too" returned to Florida waters sometime on or before October 25, 1984, when it was sighted at the Indian River Causeway Bridge. On October 26, 1984, it was sighted at Flagler Bridge in West Palm Beach. Thereafter, it went on to the Lantana Boat Works Marina, Lantana, Florida, for repairs. Lantana is the location of the yacht's original builder, whose equipment and expertise were preferable to that of other boatyards for certain strut repairs due to the peculiar nature of this type of yacht. After those repairs, the yacht was anchored in Palm Beach from January 1985 to April 1985. Although Mr. Gross testified that the strut repairs of necessity had to be done in the Lantana boatyard, his view is not necessarily conclusive of this issue because he admitted "Binghamton Too" was the first yacht he had ever purchased, because he was vague about equating desirability and necessity without any supporting direct expert testimony, and because of the facts found infra. The Lantana repair records from October 29 to December 31, 1984 show $42,521.82 in repairs, of which only $2,500 pertain to fabrication of a strut. Again, the majority of repairs was to refurbish and paint the vessel. Mr. Gross spent approximately October 1984 to April 1985, October 1985 to April 1986, and October 1986 to April 1987 in his father's home in West Palm Beach, Florida. By his own testimony, he confirmed that he established the "technical" office for his "Binghamton Too" business there. He applied, in early December 1984, for a Florida sales tax registration to operate a charter business, representing Palm Beach as his place of business. The account was established January 1, 1985 with the account number of 60-22-080051-61. The captain and mate of the "Binghamton Too" also wintered in Florida each of these years. On December 6, 1984, Mr. Gross wrote the State of New Jersey's Division of Taxation that the yacht's "principal location and headquarters are in West Palm Beach, Florida where it maintains an office and full-time employees," thus successfully arguing that the "Binghamton Too" should be exempt from New Jersey's registration requirements for any vessel residing in that state in excess of 180 days. This correspondence was in connection with a tax problem of the mother ship "Binghamton," still moored in New Jersey. Mr. Gross further represented that Florida was "Binghamton Too's" primary location with trips to the Bahamas." For most of the period from late December, 1984 to early April, 1985, the yacht was in Palm Harbor Marina, West Palm Beach, Florida, the first time not in repairs, and clearly could have returned to New Jersey under its own power had Mr. Gross chosen to do so. From January 24 to March 26, 1985, the boat was in operation, as sighted at the Pompano Beach and Fort Lauderdale bridges. From April 1985 until October of 1985, the yacht was operated as part of Petitioner's commercial charter operation in New Jersey, which included over 100 charters during this time period. Nonetheless, on June 10, 1985, Mr. Gross purchased a boat slip at Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo, Florida. This slip was later sold. Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact 6-12, which clearly establish a pattern of wintering the yacht in Florida waters, it is inferred that, despite Mr. Gross' testimony that it was "necessary" to have "Binghamton Too's" strut repaired in late 1984 by the original Florida manufacturer of the yacht, its presence in Florida from October 1984 until April, 1985 was primarily and substantially due to the preference of Mr. Gross, Petitioner's President, and not due to necessity or emergency. In October of 1985, the yacht returned to Florida where it remained until April of 1986. During this time, the boat underwent further repairs, including the complete repainting of the hull, the need for which Mr. Gross attributed to the old paint being cracked and shaken off by the vibration of the yacht. From April 1986 until October of 1986, the yacht was operated as part of Petitioner's commercial charter operation in New Jersey, which included over 100 charters during this time period. The yacht returned to Florida in October, 1986, and again remained in Florida until early April, 1987, when it left for New Jersey. In late October 1987, the yacht returned to Florida where it was traded in as part of the consideration for a larger yacht in November of 1987. The closing date was December 30, 1987. The cash equivalent received by Petitioner as credit on the trade-in was $100,000. In all, Petitioner asserts that over $200,000 was spent by the corporation on the "Binghamton Too" before it was traded. Shortly after buying the "Binghamton Too", Petitioner had begun trying to sell it for the highest price obtainable. These sales efforts included large ads in national yachting publications and listings with active yacht brokers. The highest outright offer received by Petitioner was $75,000. However, this was Mr. Gross' first sales effort of this kind, and his opinion testimony that the "Binghamton Too" was not bought from the Petitioner outright and at a good price because of latent defects and cost of repair is neither credible nor persuasive since his opinion does not possess the reliability of an expert in assessing whether it was the condition of the yacht, its unusual "Halmatic" type, or some other factor which made the "Binghamton Too" undesirable to potential purchasers. The Florida Department of Revenue issued a Notice of Delinquent Tax January 30, 1987, of five-percent use tax upon the purchase price plus 25 percent penalty. Interest was figured at 12 percent per annum. Petitioner timely protested. The agency conceded that the purchase price on the original notice was mistakenly listed at $475,000, that the assessment appropriately should have been on $457,500 (see Finding of Fact No. 1) and that the State presently claims only the tax amount of 5% of Petitioner's initial $457,500 purchase price at $22,875, the 25 percent penalty at $5,719, and interest on the tax from February 18, 1984, to June 18, 1989 at $14,650. (Interest accrues at $7.52 daily.) The total assessment through June 18, 1989 is $43,234.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order affirming the assessment of $22,875, with 25% penalty and interest at $7.52 per day from February 18, 1984 until paid. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon consideration of Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes the following rulings are made upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 2,3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22: Accepted except to the degree not proven. 4: Rejected as stated because not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. 6, 12: Rejected in part as not proven, in part as subordinate and unnecessary, and in part as to the conclusion-if law as "latent." 7, 8, 9: Accepted except as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 16: Accepted that Mr. Gross testified to this amount, however, the evidence does not support the amount precisely nor that it all went to "repairs." 20: Accepted as modified to better express the record as a whole. Respondent's PFOF: 1: Accepted, but as a Conclusion of Law. 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: Accepted. 5: Accepted in substance; what is not adopted is either mere recitation/characterization of testimony, is cumulative, or is subordinate to the facts as found. 6: Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 7: Sentence 1 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as mere legal argument or subordinate to the facts as found. 8, 11: Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole. Mr. Gross testified to a May 5, 1984 date for No. 8. 18: Except for mere legal argument, accepted. 24: Accepted upon the terms set forth in the Recommended Order. 25: Except as subordinate and unnecessary, accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gene D. Brown, Esquire 3836 Killearn Court Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William D. Moore, General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Katie D. Tucker Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On January 9, 1980, Richard Morgentaler, Trustee, obtained title to 574 lots in Pinecrest Estates, a subdivision located in St. Johns County, Florida. Pinecrest Estates is registered with the Division. (Pet. Ex. 1) Richard Morgentaler paid 22,960.00 for the 574 lots, or approximately $40 per lot. (Pet. Ex. 23) On July 21, 1980, Richard Morgentaler conveyed 44 lots to Florida Crown Corporation. (Pet. Ex. 15) The deed reflects a documentary stamp tax of 8.80. Murray Fields was the president and sole stockholder of Florida Crown Corporation. (Pet. Ex. 20) The Corporation was formed on July 17, 1980, only 4 days before the corporation obtained title to the 44 lots from Richard Morgentaler. On August 29, 1980, Richard Morgentaler also conveyed 10 lots in Pinecrest Estates to Murray Fields. (Pet. Ex. 18) Neither Florida Crown Corporation nor Murray Fields has ever been registered with the Division to offer or sell subdivided lands. (Pet. Ex. 2) On August 29, 1980, Shirley Arthur purchased 9 lots in Pinecrest Estates from Richard Morgentaler, Trustee, for $21,860.00. (Pet. Ex. 16 & 22) Present at the closing in Morgentaler's office were Shirley Arthur, Murray Fields, Barry Shelomith and Richard Morgentaler. Shirley Arthur had previously met Murray Fields when Murray Fields became her driving instructor. As a friendship developed between Shirley Arthur and Murray Fields, Shirley Arthur placed a great deal of trust and confidence in Murray Fields. Murray Fields told Shirley Arthur about some allegedly great investments in land through Barry Shelomith, who was described by Fields as "liquidator of estates." Fields and Shelomith presented brochures about Pinecrest Estates and the surrounding area and made many representations to Shirley Arthur about the value of the land as well as potential development in the area. (Pet. Ex. 21) Murray Fields also told Shirley Arthur that he was buying 10 lots in Pinecrest Estates at the same time. Shirley Arthur's belief that Murray Fields was buying lots at the same time was a major factor in her decision to purchase, because of the trust she placed in Murray Fields. Shirley Arthur was not given a public offering statement prior to or at the closing. At no time did Murray Fields disclose to Shirley Arthur the adverse features of the land, the absence of roads to the subdivision, the absence of roads in the subdivision, or the amount of water continually covering the subdivided land. (Testimony of Shirley Arthur; Pet. Ex 4) As president of Florida Crown Corporation, Murray Fields sold subdivision lots to many individuals from July 1980 to July 1981. (Pet. Ex. 5 through 14) Most of these deeds reflect documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $5.20 to $13.60). 1/
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums, issue a Final Order as follows: Ordering Murray Fields to cease and desist from offering or disposing and from partici pating in the offer or disposition of interests in Pinecrest Estates or any other subdivided lands until he has a valid order or registration, delivers a current public offering statement, and otherwise complies with Chapter 498, Florida Statutes: and Ordering Murray Fields to pay to the Division, within 30 days from the entry of the Final Order, a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 498.023(1) and Section 498.023(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Clarke Engineering Company submitted a bid and was awarded a contract on 19 October 1978 by the City of Pompano Beach for the construction of storm drainage improvements in the City of Pompano Beach. In addition to the normal provisions of public works contracts such as prevailing wage rates, bonds, subcontractors, etc., this contract included the following provision: PRICES BID- The prices are to include selling directly to the City and delivering all materials, equipment supplies, [sic] including applicable taxes, and all other facilities at agreed prices, and the performance of all labor and services necessary or proper for the installation and completion of the work at additional agreed prices except as may be otherwise expressly provided in the contract documents. Under the present interpretation of statutes and rules of the Department of Revenue, items involving materials, equipment and supplies sold and delivered to the City of Pompano Beach, are exempt from sales tax, provided the Contractor meets the requirements of the Department of Revenue. Bid items involving labor and installation are not exempt from the Florida State Sales Tax. The Contractor will be responsible for reviewing the pertinent State Statutes and Florida Department of Revenue Rules and Regulations and any other applicable regulations or codes involving the sales tax and complying with all requirements. Item No. 1 on this contract provided for the Contractor to sell and deliver to the City eight items of personal property at the bid price per unit. These items comprised 15", 18", 24", 27" and 42" diameter corrugated steel pipe; type "C" inlets; type "E" inlets; and manholes. The total bid submitted by Petitioner for Item No. 1 was $69,466.00. Although this is an estimated total and not the dollar amount actually delivered to City, it is the sales tax on Item 1 that is in dispute. The exact amount of supplies and materials charged to the City pursuant to this item was not presented at the hearing but is obviously not in dispute. On all other supplies and materials used by the Contractor in connection with this contract, Clarke paid the sales tax without protest. Upon acceptance of Clarke's bid by the City, Clarke, on 19 October 1978 submitted and application for a certificate of registration to conduct business as a dealer involving sales and use tax. (Exhibit 2). A copy of his contract with the City was forwarded with the application. This application was forwarded by the local revenue office in Tallahassee on 14 November 1978 for review and appropriate action. (Exhibit 2). By letter dated 20 November 1978 Respondent's Chief, Sales Tax Bureau, denied Petitioner's application for sales tax registration on the ground that in his opinion the contract did not "clearly meet the definition of Rule 12A- 1.52(2)(d)." Additional correspondence between Clarke and the Department of Revenue (DOR) failed to modify Respondent's position and by letter dated April 26, 1979, DOR advised Petitioner it could consult with an attorney if deemed aggrieved by the action of DOR. By letter dated May 17, 1979, Clarke requested an administrative hearing to review this determination and this proceeding followed.
The Issue Whether Petitioner owes the assessment for sales and use tax as alleged by the Department of Revenue.
Findings Of Fact George Schoenrock is a resident of the State of Florida. His address is 7600 Miami View Drive, Northgate Village, Miami, Florida. Mr. Schoenrock is the owner of a company known as Action Marine. This company is located in the State of Florida and manufactures and sells new boats. In 1996 Mr. Schoenrock also formed a company in North Carolina called Action Boatworks. This company, Action Boatworks, is the Petitioner in this cause. In 1996 Petitioner purchased a boat made in Wanchese, North Carolina and named it the "Action Lady." The boat was purchased to re-sell for profit by Petitioner, a dealer in North Carolina. Action Boatworks is not registered in Florida to sell boats nor does it possess a Florida sales tax dealer's license or a tax number from the Florida Department of Revenue. At the time of purchase Mr. Schoenrock considered the "Action Lady" unfinished as it lacked canvas, fishing equipment, chair rigging, and electronic equipment for navigation. The total paid to Davis Boatworks, Inc. (the manufacturer) for the "Action Lady" was in excess of $571,000.00. The invoice for this purchase, dated May 21, 1996, did not list Petitioner as the purchaser of the vessel but identified a "Barney Schoenrock." After the purchase of the boat, Mr. Schoenrock brought the "Action Lady" to South Florida where he intended to complete the installation of the items noted above and re-sell it. The vessel entered the State of Florida by the end of May 1996, and proceeded down the coast to a dock at Mr. Schoenrock's residence. One deterrent to the re-sale of the "Action Lady" was immediately discovered by Mr. Schoenrock. That is, the diesel engines did not pass a "P.I.D." inspection required for the warranty to be effective. This inspection required Detroit Diesel to complete the P.I.D. test and to certify the engines were acceptable. The vessel eventually passed this inspection some eight or nine months after Mr. Schoenrock had received the boat. The first effort to repair the vessel in order to pass the P.I.D. test was in June of 1996 when it was taken to a repair facility known as Safety Harbor. The "Action Lady" remained at Safety Harbor until August 7, 1996, when it returned to Mr. Schoenrock's residence. Thereafter, on or about October 24, 1996, the vessel went back to Safety Harbor for additional repairs which lasted approximately two weeks. After the repairs were completed, sometime in November 1996, the boat was returned to Mr. Schoenrock's residence. In October 1996 Mr. Schoenrock listed the "Action Lady" for sale with Walsh Yachts. The asking price was noted at $695,520.00. Also at this time it was placed in the Fort Lauderdale boat show. Except for the time the boat was in repairs or on exhibition during the October boat show, the "Action Lady" remained docked at Mr. Schoenrock's residence. Eventually, Petitioner sold the vessel in South Florida to Joseph Gregory in March of 1997. According to Mr. Schoenrock the boat was not used for his own personal use. It was not used by others for personal use. It was subject to repairs, testing, and demonstration the entire time it was in Florida prior to its sale. According to Mr. Schoenrock, when he purchased the boat in North Carolina, he paid sales tax in that state totaling $2500.00. Mr. Schoenrock's company, Action Marine, was never in any way an owner of the "Action Lady." Mr. Schoenrock insured the vessel for its value and was the beneficiary of the policy. From June 1, 1996, through its resale in March 1997, the "Action Lady" did not leave the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order affirming the use tax assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 5th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric J. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Eric Taylor, Assistant Attorney General 401 Northwest Second Avenue, N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Jack Stein, Esquire Arthur Rosenberg, Esquire Stein, Rosenberg & Winikoff Seventh Floor 4875 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to all facts in this proceeding. Those facts found relevant to a determination of the issue are as follows: Petitioner, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is a New York corporation and is functionally divided into two divisions: the Long Lines Department and the General Department. Through its Long Lines Department, petitioner is a federally regulated public utility and common carrier which furnishes interstate and international telecommunications services. Long Lines is responsible generally for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide system of interstate telecommunications facilities and related equipment which serve to interconnect the facilities of over 1700 operating telecommunications companies in the United States as well as telecommunications systems abroad. Some of these facilities extend into and through the State of Florida. In performing this interstate business, Long Lines operates, and thus has property or employees or both in 49 states, including Florida. Through its General Department, petitioner is the parent corporation of 21 operating telecommunications companies (known as "Associated Companies"), Western Electric Company, Inc. ("Western") and Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. ("Bell Labs"). The General Department holds and manages the stock owned in these subsidiaries and two minority owned companies, and provides capital. advice and assistance to them. It conducts these activities principally in New York and New Jersey and conducts no business and has no property or employees in Florida. The only business activities in the State of Florida during 1972, 1973 and 1974 were conducted through petitioner's Long Lines Department in connection with the operation of the interstate and international long distance telecommunications network. None of the Associated Companies is organized under the laws of Florida or has its headquarters in Florida. The Only Associated Company which conducts business or has property or employees within Florida is the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter "Southern Bell"), a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner. Southern Bell files its own separate Florida income tax returns and during the period 1972-1974 paid approximately $10 million in income tax to Florida. The respondent concurs that petitioner is entitled to deduct 100 percent of the dividends paid by Southern Bell to petitioner. Western, also a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner, is a manufacturing corporation with its own Board of Directors and officers, doing business in all 50 states. During the period 1972-1974 Western paid approximately $1.7 million in income tax to Florida. The respondent concurs that petitioner is entitled to deduct 100 percent of the dividends paid by Western to petitioner. For each of the 1972, 1973 and 1974 tax years, petitioner has filed a federal consolidated income tax return, and has made a valid election under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code for each of those years. That provision of the federal tax law permits a domestic corporation to deduct 100 percent of the dividends received from its wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries. Petitioner's federal income tax returns were audited by the Internal Revenue Service and the respective tax liabilities were determined and paid for each of the years in question. The Internal Revenue Service did not tax dividends received by petitioner from its affiliates. Petitioner timely filed its Florida corporate income tax returns for the years ending December 31, 1972, December 31, 1973 and December 31, 1974. Petitioner did not elect and was not required to file a Florida consolidated income tax return under Section 220.131, Florida Statutes. For each of the years in question, petitioner reported on line 1--"federal taxable income (line 30, Form 1120 or corresponding line on related form 1120 series, 990C or 990T)"- -of its Florida corporation income tax return (Form F-1120) its taxable income for federal income tax purposes computed as if petitioner had filed a separate federal income tax return for each of the years in question and for each preceding taxable year for which it was a member of an affiliated group. These amounts were: 1972 $ 94,020,281 1973 $213,364,165 1974 $110,770,402 On its Florida corporation income tax return for each of the years in question, petitioner made the additions and subtractions required by the form of the return in computing "adjusted federal income" and apportioned this amount by the prescribed three-factor formula to obtain "Florida net income." The Department of Revenue adjusted the amount of "federal taxable income" and hence "Florida net income" of petitioner for each of the years in question by adding thereto 15 percent of the dividends received from subsidiaries which were deductible for federal income tax purposes under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code. On April 10, 1978, the Department issued a notice of proposed deficiency for petitioner's tax years ended December 31, 1972, December 31, 1973 and December 31, 1974. The total amount of the proposed deficiency was $1,131,158, computed as follows: YEAR AUDITED TAX TAX AS FILED DEFICIENCY 1972 $426,468 $122,365 $304,103 1973 668,597 281,168 387,429 1974 594,300 154,674 439,626 Total $1,689,365 $558,207 $1,131,158 After a timely protest to the proposed deficiencies was filed by the petitioner, correspondence and an informal conference between the parties was had. Finally, on April 16, 1981, the Department issued a letter denying the protest and petitioner petitioned for an administrative hearing. Through correspondence and discussions with the petitioner, the Department of Revenue has taken the position that it would allow only an 85 percent dividend deduction for the dividends received by petitioner from those affiliates which were not subject to the Florida corporate income tax code. Petitioner is seeking to take a 100 percent deduction of all dividends which it received from its subsidiaries, as it did on its federal income tax returns. The dividends received by petitioner which the Department is attempting to subject to Florida tax by its proposed deficiency assessment are derived from its equity investment in its subsidiaries and they represent to petitioner a return on such investment. Since the actual capital, however, for that investment is furnished primarily by public investors, the principal use of the dividends received by petitioner is to meet its obligation to its shareholders and bondholders for the payment of dividends and interest. For example, in 1974 petitioner received dividends from the Associated Companies, Western and other affiliates in the amount of $2,538,443,000 and paid dividends to shareholders in the amount of $2,039,800,000 and interest on its long and intermediate term debt of $475,670,000. Petitioner, therefore, serves as the investor interface between the investing public and its subsidiary companies, whereby the purchase of petitioner's stock or debt issues actually represents an investment in the earnings of the Bell System. Petitioner, acting through its General Department, thus provides the avenue by which the subsidiaries pass their net earnings to the investing public. The income which the Department seeks to tax is derived from dividends received by petitioner primarily from earnings generated by the property and employees of the Associated Companies which are devoted to furnishing intrastate and interstate telecommunications services in their operating territories in states other than the State of Florida. These earnings are subject to income taxes in all states in which the Associated Companies provide telecommunications services that impose income taxes on corporations. The dividends received by petitioner do not contribute to the funding of Long Lines since (1) the pervasive regulation under which petitioner's subsidiaries operate limits their earnings to that amount sufficient for the needs of their own operations and effectively prevents those earnings from being available for use in other businesses and (2) earnings paid out as dividends by petitioner's subsidiaries are principally required to be passed to the public investors in the Bell System, through petitioner's General Department, in order to meet dividend and interest obligations to these outside shareholders and bondholders. During the tax years in question, the Department of Revenue had not promulgated any rule with respect to the disallowance of a deduction for 100 percent of dividends received as provided for under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Florida corporate income tax return forms did not require any such add-back or adjustment. During the 1980 legislative session, an amendment to Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, was proposed which would have changed the definition of "affiliated group of corporations." Such proposed legislation was not passed and did not become law.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that that portion of the Department's proposed assessment of deficiencies for the 1972, 1973 and 1974 tax years as is based upon dividends received by the petitioner from its affiliates be withdrawn as being contrary to law and invalid. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of April, 1982. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioners' request for a refund of corporate income taxes for the year ending January 31, 1975, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of January, 1981. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1981.
