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
The Issue Whether Petitioner ("DEPARTMENT") is entitled to assess sales or use taxes, penalties, and interest against Respondent ("VOLPE") pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, as set out in its Notice of Proposed Assessment dated March 20, 1980.
Findings Of Fact During 1975-1977, VOLPE was a general contractor engaged in the construction of a United States Post Office and Vehicle Maintenance Facility at Miami, Florida. In connection with that construction project, VOLPE purchased materials from numerous subcontractors, including Hardware Lighting and Emporium, and Jemco, Inc. (Testimony of Alford, Danca; P.E. 2, 3) On March 8, 1979, after audit of VOLPE's records, the DEPARTMENT proposed to assess VOLPE for delinquent sales and use tax, together with interest and penalties thereon, which it claimed were due from VOLPE's purchase of materials from various subcontractors. The DEPARTMENT's proposed assessment was based on its inability to verify, to its satisfaction, that sales and use tax due from those sales transactions was paid by VOLPE to the vendors, and subsequently remitted to the DEPARTMENT. (Testimony of Alford, P.E. 3.) With the DEPARTMENT's encouragement, VOLPE then wrote its vendors in the various sales transactions requesting proof that the requisite Florida sales or use tax had been remitted to the DEPARTMENT. In response, two vendors, Ohio Medical Products and Power Wash, remitted tax vendors, (collected from VOLPE at time of sale) to the DEPARTMENT, in the amounts of $10,070 and $1,635.50, respectively. In addition, VOLPE discovered that it had not paid the requisite tax to a vendor in one transaction and remitted a payment to the DEPARTMENT in the amount of $1,442.53. (Testimony of Danca, Alford, P.E. 1.) These late tax payments made by Ohio Medical Products, Power Wash, and VOLPE in partial satisfaction of the DEPARTMENT's March 8, 1979, proposed assessment consisted only of the tax due on the individual sales, including interest thereon. No penalty payments were made because Salvatore Danca, VOLPE's comptroller involved in collecting the sales tax from the various vendors, reasonably and in good faith believed that the DEPARTMENT would waive penalties if late tax payments were promptly submitted. Although Louis A. Crocco, the DEPARTMENT's representative, by affidavit denies making such a representation, he admits that the possibility of adjusting the penalties, otherwise due, was discussed with Danca. In the absence of more explicit evidence from the DEPARTMENT concerning those discussions, or attacking the credibility of Danca's testimony, it is determined that, based on discussions with DEPARTMENT representatives, Danca reasonably and in good faith believed penalties would be waived. (Testimony of Danca; P.E. 1, 6, R.E. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) As a result of partial payments and adjustments made to the DEPARTMENT's proposed sales and use tax assessment, the DEPARTMENT issued a fourth revision of the proposed assessment on March 20, 1980. By that revision, the DEPARTMENT asserts VOLPE, as of March 20, 1980, is liable for payment of tax, interest, and penalties as follows: Sales Transaction Sales And Use Tax Due Interest Penalties (25 Percent) Jemco, Inc., sale of mechanization equipment to VOLPE, per agreement dated December 5, 1975. $16,229.53 $4,047.88 Hardware, Lighting and Emporium, sale of finished hardware and accessories to VOLPE per VOLPE Purchase Order dated October 2, 1975. 1,556.10 389.02 Ohio Medical Products' Power Wash's, and unidenti- fied vendor's sale to VOLPE for which late payments of tax due and interest have been made. -0- 2,737.43 TOTAL: $17,856.10 $5,779.42 $7,174.33 (Testimony of Alford, Danca, 3.) Stipulation of Counsel; P.E. 1, 2, [AS TO JEMCO, INC./VOLPE TRANSACTION] By its standard Agreement dated December 5, 1975, VOLPE agreed to purchase from Jemco, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, post office mechanization equipment for the contract price of $347,900. Subsequent change orders resulted in an adjustment to $405,689.70. In order to minimize on-site installation problems, Jemco, Inc., was required to maximize assembly of the mechanization equipment at its out-of-state plant prior to shipping to the Miami job site. (Testimony of Danca; P.E. 2, R.E. 1.) The written sales Agreement, including attachments, between Jemco, Inc., and VOLPE expressly states, in three separate places, that the total contract sales price includes Florida sales tax. The DEPARTMENT admits that VOLPE has paid all monies due Jemco, Inc., under the contract. By virtue of its full payment of the contract price which expressly included sales tax, it must be concluded that VOLPE paid the requisite sales or use tax to Jemco, Inc. (Stipulation of Counsel; P.E. 2.) VOLPE's standard form, entitled "Subcontractor's Application for Payment" was used as a basis to make incremental payments to Jemco, Inc., pursuant to the Agreement. That form required the subcontractor to certify that, among other things, it had complied with state tax laws applicable to performance of the Agreement. (Testimony of Danca; R.E. 11.) VOLPE's actions in connection with the Jemco, Inc., sales transaction were consistent with its standard practice when entering contracts with vendors or subcontractors. That practice is to require that the sales price include the payment of necessary sales tax, the vendor or subcontractor is required to remit the required tax to the appropriate government entity. After performance of the contract, the subcontractor is required to certify that these requirements have been satisfied. The certification is in the form of a General Release which discharges VOLPE from all claims, debts and liabilities which the subcontractor may have against VOLPE because of the contract. In this case, Jemco, Inc., executed such a General Release in favor of VOLPE. (Testimony of Danca; R.E. 1.) The DEPARTMENT has not audited Jemco, Inc.'s records, thus, it does not know whether the tax it seeks to assess against VOLPE has already been remitted by Jemco, Inc. (Testimony of Alford.) The DEPARTMENT offered no affirmative evidence to contravene VOLPE's assertion that it had paid the requisite sales or use tax to Jemco, Inc. Its claim rests solely on the fact that VOLPE's evidence of payment does not contain a sales invoice or other documentation which itemizes, or separately states the amount of sales tax due from VOLPE. [AS TO HARDWARE AND LIGHTING EMPORIUM TRANSACTION] By purchase agreement dated October 2, 1975, VOLPE agreed to purchase finished hardware from Hardware and Lighting Emporium of Miami, Florida, for the contract price of $23,877, which expressly included Florida state sales tax. Each billing invoice issued by Hardware and Lighting Emporium separately itemizes and states the Florida sales tax due. In applying for payment under the agreement, Hardware and Lighting Emporium completed the VOLPE "Subcontractor's Application for Payment" forms certifying compliance with state sales tax laws in performing the agreement. VOLPE has fully satisfied its payment obligations under the purchase agreement. (Testimony of Danca; P.E. 3, R.E. 9, 10.)
Conclusions Conclusions: VOLPE established by a preponderance of evidence that it previously paid to its several vendors the sales and use tax which the DEPARTMENT now seeks. Accordingly, the proposed tax assessment, with penalties and interest thereon, cannot be sustained. Recommendation: That the DEPARTMENT's Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties, and Interest, under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, dated March 20, 1980, be DISMISSED. Background By written notice issued on March 20, 1980, Petitioner ("DEPARTMENT") proposed to assess Respondent ("VOLPE") taxes, penalties, and interest allegedly due pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. In response, VOLPE claimed that it had previously paid the tax in question, and requested an opportunity to submit proof at a formal hearing. On April 17, 1980, the DEPARTMENT forwarded VOLPE's request to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and asked that the requested hearing be conducted by a hearing officer. On May 15, 1980, final hearing was set for July 18, 1980. On June 17, 1980, the DEPARTMENT filed a motion to realign the parties. As grounds, it stated that VOLPE had the burden of proof, and the duty to present a prima facie case at hearing since VOLPE requested the hearing and was the party seeking relief. At the DEPARTMENT's request, ruling on its motion was withheld until presentation of arguments at final hearing. At hearing, the DEPARTMENT's motion was denied for the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law below. In support of its proposed assessment against VOLPE, the DEPARTMENT called Marvin P. Alford, a tax examiner, as its only witness, and offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1/ 1 through 6, inclusive, each of which was received into evidence. VOLPE called Salvatore Danca, its comptroller, and Harold G. Gregory, its branch manager, as its witnesses, and offered Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 11, inclusive, each of which was received. At the conclusion of hearing, the parties were granted the opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and memoranda within ten (10) days after filing of the transcript of hearing. The post-hearing submittals were filed by August 21, 1980. Based on the evidence submitted at hearing, the following facts are determined:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the DEPARTMENT's Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties, and Interest, Under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, dated March 20, 1980, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1980.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner owes sale and/or use tax for the purchase/lease of magnetic tapes containing mailing lists used by the Petitioner in its mail order business, as set forth in the Notice of Decision dated December 10, 2003, and, if so, the amount owed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, including the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. See § 213.05, Florida Statutes (2004). At the times material to this proceeding, Spectramin was a Florida "S" corporation whose home office and principal place of business was located at 5401 Northwest 102 Avenue, Suite 119, Sunrise, Florida. Spectramin was a Florida- registered sales tax dealer. On October 19, 2001, the Department issued to Spectramin a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records for audit number A0127016590, which was a sales and use tax audit covering the Audit Period. On January 15, 2002, the Department and Spectramin signed an audit agreement that delineated the procedures and sampling method to be used by the Department for the audit. Because Spectramin's books and records were voluminous, the Department and Spectramin agreed to employ certain specified sampling procedures. For the audit, the Department examined Spectramin's purchase invoices, general ledgers, and income statements for the 2000 calendar year. At the times material to this proceeding, Spectramin was a mail-order company that sold nutritional supplements throughout the United States. It engaged in direct marketing of its products and employed two methods of direct marketing: Self-mailers were sent to prospective customers, and catalogs were sent to persons who had purchased its products, as a means of educating these buyers and converting them into repeat customers.1 In order to send self-mailers to prospective customers, Spectramin leased mailing lists consisting of names and addresses, and, in some instances, bar codes, compiled by various vendors who sold mailing lists. The contents of the mailing lists were based on demographic criteria specified by Spectramin. Under the terms of the lease, Spectramin was allowed to use the mailing list for only one mailing. Pertinent to this proceeding, Spectramin received some of the mailing lists in the form of data digitally encoded on magnetic tapes. The cost of leasing a mailing list was based on the number of names on the list, and the invoice for a list included a separately-stated, standard charge of $25.00 to cover the cost of the magnetic tape containing the data. The magnetic tapes themselves had no value to Spectramin; the only value of the tapes to Spectramin lay in the data encoded on the tapes, and the greatest part of the cost of the one-time lease was the cost of the data encoded on the magnetic tapes; for example, Spectramin paid $75.00 per 1,000 names for one of the mailing lists it leased, plus the $25.00 charge for the magnetic tape. Spectramin did not pay sales tax in Florida on the cost of the data encoded on the magnetic tapes at the time it leased the mailing lists. Spectramin did not have the computer equipment necessary to read the data on magnetic tapes, so it contracted with third-party letter shops and printers to process the magnetic tapes. The letter shops with which Spectramin has done business since 1991 are all located outside the state of Florida. Once a letter shop received magnetic tapes from Spectramin, the data on the tapes were downloaded to a computer, and cleaned, and sorted into usable names and addresses; the letter shop then sent the cleaned and sorted data to a print shop, which printed the names and addresses onto self-mailers provided by Spectramin. The letter shop sorted the self-mailers by zip code and mailed them. All of these operations took place outside Florida. At one time, Spectramin's practice was to have the mailing-list vendors ship the magnetic tapes encoded with the data directly to a letter shop specified by Spectramin. The letter shop held the Spectramin magnetic tapes until it had accumulated several tapes, and then it would process the data from the tapes, have the names and addresses printed on the self-mailers, and mail the self-mailers. Spectramin found that the letter shops with which it did business sometimes lost track of the tapes received for Spectramin's mailings, and it cost Spectramin additional time and money to track down the tapes or to purchase mailing lists. Because of the additional time and money Spectramin spent to track down the lists, it stopped having the magnetic tapes sent directly to the letter shop. At the times material to this proceeding, the magnetic tapes containing the digitally-encoded mailing lists were shipped directly to Spectramin by the mailing-list vendors, and Spectramin took delivery of the tapes at its principal place of business in Florida. The vendors sent the mailing lists to Spectramin's Florida office by overnight delivery through either Federal Express or United Parcel Service. It was Spectramin's usual business practice for an employee to take delivery of the magnetic tapes containing the mailing lists and to place them on a shelf in the front of the office. The boxes containing the magnetic tapes were not opened. When Spectramin had accumulated several boxes of magnetic tapes, an employee put the boxes into a larger box and sent the tapes by overnight delivery to one of the out-of-state letter shops with which Spectramin did business. Spectramin did not keep the tapes in its Florida office more than one or two days because the mailing lists it had leased lost their value with time.2 The only value of the magnetic tapes was in the names and addressed encoded on the tapes, and the only use to which Spectramin put the data was to cause the names and addresses it had leased to be printed on self-mailers and mailed to the prospective customers. Because the letter shops that printed the names and addresses and mailed the self-mailers were located outside of Florida, Spectramin did not "use" the data or the magnetic tapes in Florida. The only contact the magnetic tapes had with Florida was during the short period of time the tapes sat on the shelf at Spectramin's office before being shipped out of the state for processing. Spectramin did not pay use tax in Florida on the cost of the data encoded on the magnetic tapes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order withdrawing the sales and use tax assessment against Spectramin, Inc., for the audit period extending from September 1, 1996, through August 31, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2005.
