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.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent properly conducted a sales and use tax audit of Petitioner's books and records; and, if so, whether Petitioner is liable for tax and interest on its purchases of materials used for improvements to real property.
Findings Of Fact During the audit period, Petitioner was a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 7820 Professional Place, Suite 2, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's Florida sales tax number was 39-00-154675-58, and Petitioner's federal employer identification number was 59-3089046. After the audit period, the Florida Department of State administratively dissolved Petitioner for failure to file statutorily required annual reports and filing fees. Petitioner engaged in the business of providing engineering services and fabricating control panels. Petitioner fabricated control panels in a shop Petitioner maintained on its business premises. Petitioner sold some of the control panels in over-the- counter sales. Petitioner properly collected and remitted sales tax on the control panels that Petitioner sold over-the-counter. Petitioner used other control panels in the performance of real property contracts by installing the panels as improvements to real property (contested panels). Petitioner was the ultimate consumer of the materials that Petitioner purchased and used to fabricate the contested panels. At the time that Petitioner installed the contested panels into real property, the contested panels became improvements to the real property. Petitioner failed to pay sales tax at the time Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate the contested panels. Petitioner provided vendors with Petitioner's resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax, when Petitioner purchased the materials used to fabricate the contested panels. None of the purchase transactions for materials used to fabricate the contested panels were tax exempt. The audit is procedurally correct. The amount of the assessment is accurate. On October 23, 2000, Respondent issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (form DR-840), for audit number A0027213470, for the period of October 1, 1995, through September 30, 2000. During an opening interview, the parties discussed the audit procedures and sampling method to be employed and the records to be examined. Based upon the opening interview, Respondent prepared an Audit Agreement and presented it to an officer and owner of the taxpayer. Respondent began the audit of Petitioner's books and records on January 22, 2001. On March 9, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (original Notice of Intent). At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted an audit conference with Petitioner. At the audit conference, Petitioner provided documentation that the assessed transactions involved improvements to real property. At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted a second audit conference with Petitioner's former legal counsel. Petitioner authorized its former legal counsel to act on its behalf during the audit. At the second audit conference, the parties discussed audit procedures and sampling methods, Florida use tax, fabricated items, and fabrication costs. Respondent revised the audit findings based upon additional information from Petitioner that the assessed transactions involved fabricated items of tangible personal property that became improvements to real property. Respondent assessed use tax on the materials used to fabricate control panels in those instances where Petitioner failed to document that Petitioner paid sales tax at the time of the purchase. Respondent also assessed use tax on fabrication costs including the direct labor and the overhead costs associated with the fabrication process, for the period of October 1, 1995, through June 30, 1999. Respondent eliminated use tax assessed on cleaning services in the original Notice of Intent because the amount of tax was de minimis. On August 29, 2001, Respondent issued a Revised Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Revised Notice of Intent). On September 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until January 25, 2002. On October 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a second Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until April 25, 2002. On February 6, 2002, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment for additional sales and use tax, in the amount of $21,822.27; interest through February 6, 2002, in the amount of $10,774.64; penalty in the amount of $10,831.12; and additional interest that accrues at $6.97 per diem. Petitioner exhausted the informal remedies available from Respondent. On April 29, 2002, Petitioner filed a formal written protest that, in substantial part, objected to the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit. Respondent issued a Notice of Decision sustaining the assessment of tax, penalty, and interest. Respondent correctly determined that the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit were appropriate and consistent with Respondent's statutes and regulations. Respondent concluded that the assessment was correct based upon the best available information and that Petitioner failed to provide any documentation to refute the audit findings. Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration that did not provide any additional facts, arguments, or records to support its position. On May 16, 2003, Respondent issued a Notice of Reconsideration sustaining the assessment of tax and interest in full, but compromising all penalties based upon reasonable cause.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for relief and sustaining Respondent's assessment of taxes and interest in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Michael E. Ferguson Control Design Engineering, Inc. 809 East Bloomingdale Avenue, PMB 433 Brandon, Florida 33511 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue presented is whether HMY New Yacht Sales, Inc., is liable for the payment of use tax, together with penalty and interest, on a yacht which it purchased for resale and for use as a demonstrator.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner HMY New Yacht Sales, Inc., is a Florida cor-poration located in Dania, Florida. It is a franchise and an authorized dealer for several lines of new boats. Petitioner is registered as a dealer for Florida sales tax purposes and has a dealer decal. Petitioner became an authorized dealer for Davis Yachts, a manufacturer located in North Carolina, in 1985. In January 1990 Petitioner purchased a boat from Davis Yachts to be used for demonstration and promotional activities and for resale. The boat was a 47-foot fiberglass sports fisherman named "The Bandit." When the boat was delivered, Petitioner outfitted The Bandit with extensive electronics and fishing equipment, including a tuna tower, outriggers, a fighting chair, rocket launchers, and live wells. It took approximately two months (until the second week in March 1990) to outfit the boat to have it ready for its intended sports fishing purpose. The type of equipping done by Petitioner is typical of that done on every such boat when it is sold since such a boat cannot be used for its intended purpose without the electronics and other equipment. Petitioner, however, wanted the boat to be "ready to go," when Petitioner sold it rather than having the purchaser wait for the outfitting to be done before the purchaser could use the boat. Petitioner paid the factory approximately $520,000 for the boat. Petitioner's payments to local vendors for services and materials used in outfitting the boat brought Petitioner's cost to approximately $590,000. The Bandit was never documented or registered in the state of Florida. It was only operated under Petitioner's dealer registration and decal, as provided in Section 327.13, Florida Statutes. The boat was purchased with the intent to sell it, and it was always for sale from the first moment it was outfitted and ready to be shown. It was never Petitioner's intent to keep the boat. As soon as it was outfitted, the boat had on board, at all times, a file containing a complete inventory of the boat's equipment, including custom and standard options, and a color brochure with pictures of the boat to be given to potential customers. While Petitioner was attempting to sell the boat, it was also used by Petitioner as a sales promotional tool. Petitioner took the boat to various fishing tournaments and exhibited it at boat shows and open houses. Davis Yachts bore some of the expense of those activities since promoting the boat inured to the benefit of Davis as well as of Petitioner. When the boat was being used for promotional or sales activities, it would always have on board employees or salespersons of Petitioner or of Davis Yachts and customers. On occasion, family members accompanied Petitioner's salespersons on board the boat. The manner in which The Bandit was marketed--taking it to fishing tournaments and boat shows and having open house at various events--is typically the way new sport fisherman yachts are sold throughout the industry. The boat was shown to prospective customers at least once a month. Approximately 50 customers were taken on sea trials. The boat was never loaned or rented to anyone. It was used only under the direction of Petitioner or Davis Yachts. The only compensation received by Petitioner relating to the boat resulted from the occasions when Davis Yachts split some of the expenses for the promotional or sales activities. The boat did not sell as quickly as Petitioner hoped. In October 1990 Petitioner placed the boat on the Buck System, a multiple listing service which distributes information to other yacht brokers concerning boats which are for sale. Generally, boat dealers would not put new inventory in the multiple listing system. Petitioner did so in this instance, however, in order to quickly sell the boat because the government had announced a luxury tax proposal which Petitioner feared would result in a downturn in the boat market. Even with all the effort put into attempting to sell the boat, it did not sell until November 1991. In July 1992 the Department began a routine sales tax audit of Petitioner. The audit was completed in September 1992 and covered the period of time from March 1987 through February 1992. The Department auditor determined that Petitioner owed use tax on The Bandit because in November 1990, on the advice of its accountant, Petitioner took the boat out of its inventory account and placed it in its fixed assets account in order to take depreciation for federal income tax purposes. Based solely on Petitioner's treatment of the vessel on its corporate books, the auditor determined that Petitioner converted The Bandit to its own use and was, therefore, responsible for payment of the statutory use tax rate of 6 percent of the value of the boat as reflected on Petitioner's records. Based upon the audit, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment, assessing Petitioner $33,921.94 in tax, $8,480.50 in penalty, and $7,085.52 in interest through September 16, 1992. Interest continues to accrue at $11.15 per day.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that Petitioner is not liable for payment of use tax, penalty, or interest on The Bandit, and withdrawing the assessment which is the subject of this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-12, 15, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 14, and 18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 16, 17, and 20 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, and 10 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington & Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Having heard oral argument on the issues and considered the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, Aerospace Workers, Inc., is a non-profit Florida corporation, which owns record title to the Union Lodge 166, located at 171 Taylor Avenue in Cape Canaveral, Florida. For the 1974 tax year, the Brevard County Property appraiser or Tax Assessor assessed the petitioner's lodge at full market value without allowance of any exemption. The reason given by the assessor for the disapproval of exempt status was that there is no provision under the Florida Statutes for the exemption of labor organizations. The petitioner, through its financial secretary, William J. Boydstun, then appealed the Tax Assessor's denial exempt status to the Brevard County Board of Tax Adjustment, claiming that the building should be tax exempt as one used for charitable purposes. Mr. Boydstun informed the BTA that the building in question "at any time we are not using it, has been thrown open to the public." The BTA was further informed that the building "has been used by the Brevard County Beach Erosion Control District by the Narc Aid Society, by the Avon and Winslow Beach Residents Assn., by the Roosevelt Garden Condominium Apartments, Inc. We have let local weddings take place. It has been used by the concerned Democrats and also by the County Commissioners in a couple of instances. Tomorrow we are letting the County use our building as a polling place." Mr. Boydstun also stated that petitioner's members donated $225,000.00 to the United Fund in Brevard County and had helped support the Brevard Junior Deputies, the Brevard Mental Health Center and various other organizations in the County. Also submitted to the BTA by Mr. Boydstun was a list of persons or groups who had used the building since December of 1973. Included in this list were the Mark Age Society (which petitioner stated during the hearing is a religious group), the Brevard County Beach Erosion Control District, the Avon by the Sea and Winslow Beach Residents' Association, the Roosevelt Garden Condominium Apartments, Inc., Concerned Democrats, political meetings for Senator Lawton Chiles, Mallory Horne and Governor Reubin Askew, and a minister for a local wedding. It was also stated that the building has been used as a polling place and for meetings for the United Fund Drive. The Tax Assessor represented to the BTA that he denied the exemption because labor unions are not given exemptions according to the Florida Law, and that the Department of Revenue denied an exemption for petitioner for that reason the previous year. At the meeting of the BTA on October 4, 1974, Chairman Hurdle moved that petitioner be granted a 50 percent charitable exemption on the basis that the property is used for charitable purposes. The motion carried by a vote of 2 to 1. The Tax Assessor did not concur. In its notice to the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue, the BTA explained its reasons for granting the Petitioner a fifty percent charitable exemption by stating that: "the Board found that the property should receive a 50 percent tax exemption because they felt that the use of the property provided a service which was of such a community service that its discontinuance could result in the allocation of public funds for the continuance of said services. The Board basically found that the use of the building by the general public met the requirements in the description of charitable purposes found in Chapter 196.012(6) of the Florida Statutes and therefore granted a 50 percent charitable tax exemption for the property described in Petition No. 11." In its "Notice of Proposed Agency Action to Invalidate Relief Granted by Board of Tax Adjustment," the Department of Revenue concluded in its "Staff Recommendation" that the BTA's findings and the evidence and testimony upon which they were based, were insufficient to support the ultimate finding that petitioner qualifies for a fifty percent exemption, and that the BTA had not come up with sufficient evidence to overcome the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. It was further concluded in said "Staff Recommendation" that there was no showing that the use of the property by the various community organizations was a use of more than 51 percent, and that the BTA's granting of a 50 percent exemption is expressly contrary to F.S. Section 196.012(3). SUMMARY OF ORAL ARGUMENTS The above factual findings constitute the record to which oral argument was limited at the hearing. It was the petitioner's position at the hearing that inasmuch as the Tax Assessor gave an invalid reason for denying the charitable exemption, there is no presumption of correctness attaching to his assessment. It was further contended that, given the reason for denial by the assessor (i.e., that labor organizations could not be exempt), petitioner did not believe it acceded to make a showing of predominant charitable usage. In the alternative, petitioner asserts that there was sufficient evidence before the BTA to permit the BTA to conclude that the property was used predominantly for charitable purposes. It was the respondent's position at the hearing that, regardless of the reason given by the assessor for his denial of exempt status, petitioner failed in its burden to prove the assessment wrong. In other words, it is the assessment itself which carries the presumption of correctness, and not the reasoning behind the assessment. Respondent contended that the record of the proceedings before the BTA is devoid of any evidence entitling petitioner to a charitable exemption.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is my recommendation that the action taken by the Brevard County Board of Tax Adjustment be invalidated and that the denial of exempt status made by the Brevard County Tax Assessor be affirmed. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Collins Building, Room 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether the Petitioners are liable for sales tax, penalties and interest as assessed by the Department of Revenue (the Department) and if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the facts stated in paragraphs 2-59.1/ The Department of Revenue is an agency of the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.21, Florida Statutes, and is authorized to administer the tax laws of the state, pursuant to Section 213.05, Florida Statutes. The Department was authorized to conduct an audit of each of the Petitioners and to request information to determine their liability for taxes pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Legendary Holding, Inc. (Holding) is a corporation organized under the laws of Florida effective October 23, 1996, and was so organized from 1999-2003. Holding's corporate address is 4100 Legendary Drive, Suite 200, Destin, Florida 32541. Holding was subject to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended and in effect (IRC) during 1999-2003 and for federal income tax purposes, Holding was a subchapter "s" corporation during this time. Holding was also subject to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, during 1999-2003. Petitioner Harry T's, Inc. (Harry T's), is a corporation organized under the laws of Florida effective November 9, 1998, and was so organized during Harry T's Audit Period, defined as December 1, 1999 through March 31, 2003. Harry T's was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Holding. During its Audit Period, Harry T's corporate address was 4460 Legendary Drive, Suite 400, Destin, Florida. Harry T's was subject to the IRC and for federal income tax purposes was a qualified subchapter S subsidiary of the s-corporation parent, Holding. Petitioner Beachside Inn Destin, Inc. (Beachside) was a corporation organized under the laws of Florida effective March 6, 2000, and was so organized during the Beachside Audit Period, defined as May 1, 2000, through May 31, 2003. Beachside, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Holding, was administratively dissolved on October 14, 2004, for failure to file an annual report. During the Audit Period, Beachside's principle place of business was 2931 Scenic Highway 98, Destin, Florida, 32541. Its corporate address was 4460 Legendary Drive, Suite 400, Destin Florida. Beachside was subject to the IRC and for federal income tax purposes was a qualified subchapter S subsidiary of the s-corporation parent, Holding, during the Beachside Audit Period. Petitioner Legendary Restaurant Associates, Inc. (Restaurant) is a corporation organized under the laws of Florida effective October 7, 1999, and was so organized during Restaurant's Audit Period, defined as December 1, 1999, through March 31, 2003. During this time Restaurant was a wholly owned subsidiary of Holding and Restaurant's corporate address was 4460 Legendary Drive Suite 400, Destin, Florida. Restaurant was subject to the IRC and for federal income tax purposes was a wholly-owned, qualified subchapter S subsidiary of the s-corporation parent, Holding, during the Restaurant Audit Period. Legendary, Inc. (Legendary) is a corporation organized under the laws of Florida during 1999-2003, and its corporate address was also 4460 Legendary Drive, Suite 400, Destin, Florida, during this time. Legendary was also a wholly-owned subsidiary of Holding. Legendary was subject to the IRC and for federal income tax purposes, was a qualified subchapter S subsidiary of the s-corporation parent, Holding. Legendary Resorts, LLC (Resorts), is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Florida and was so organized during 2000-2003. Resorts, whose corporate address was also 4460 Legendary Drive, Suite 400, Destin, Florida, was administratively dissolved on September 16, 2005, for failure to file an annual report. Legendary entered into a cooperative business agreement (CBA) with certain subsidiaries of Holding prior to or during 1999-2003. The terms of the CBA between Legendary and these subsidiaries were identical other than the name of the "manager" subsidiary and the percentage of compensation paid to Legendary and the formula for sharing profits varied from time to time. Legendary also entered into a management agreement with certain other of Holding's subsidiaries, and the terms of these agreements were identical. FACTS RELATED TO PETITIONER HARRY T'S AUDIT Harry T's was a registered dealer who filed form DR- 15 (Sales Tax Return) with the Department for each month of Harry T's Audit Period. Harry T's used the cash basis of accounting during its Audit Period. The Department sent Harry T's a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (Form DR-840) to conduct an audit of Harry T's books and records for this purpose. The Department and Harry T's entered into an Audit Agreement agreeing that a sampling method is the most effective, expedient, and adequate method in which to conduct an audit of Harry T's books and records. Gina Imm, a Department tax auditor, examined and sampled the available books and records of Harry T's to determine whether it properly collected and remitted sales and use tax in compliance with Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Harry T's was the tenant party in a lease with Legendary for the property upon which Harry T's operated its business prior to January 1, 2000. Under the terms of the lease agreement between Harry T's and Legendary, Harry T's paid rent equal to eight percent of the gross sales to Legendary. On January 1, 2000, the lease was terminated. On January 1, 2000, Harry T's entered into a CBA with Legendary, which was effective throughout Harry T's Audit Period. Harry T's operated a business on property owned by Holdings during Harry T's Audit Period. Accounting entries were made each month during the Audit Period to record the amount of CBA compensation that was accrued by Harry T's to Legendary under the CBA. However, no rent was recorded on the income tax or accounting books of either Harry T's or Legendary during the Audit Period. Further, no amount of money labeled as CBA compensation was transferred from Harry T's to Legendary during Harry T's Audit Period and no payments labeled as "rent" were transferred from Harry T's to Legendary. Based upon the business decisions of the Chief Financial Officer of Legendary, cash was transferred periodically from Harry T's to Legendary during the Audit Period. Based upon the business decisions of the Chief Financial Officer of Legendary, cash was also transferred from Legendary to Harry T's. During Harry T's Audit Period cash was also transferred from Legendary to Holdings. These amounts were reflected as dividend distributions and varied in amount and time from (a) Holdings insurance and mortgage indebtedness obligations associated with the property used by Harry Ts and owned by Holding, and (b) the amounts accrued under the CBA's. Any amounts collected by Harry T's and not paid directly to third parties were distributed periodically to Holdings as corporate dividends. The Department determined that the transfers of cash from Harry T's to Legendary reflected rental consideration paid as CBA compensation, and directed the Department's auditor to assess sales tax against the amounts recorded as CBA compensation accounting entries. Harry T's paid ad valorem taxes due on the property on which Harry T's operated during each year of Harry T's Audit Period. The Department auditor assessed sales tax on the amounts of ad valorem taxes paid by Harry T's on behalf of Holding. The Department determined that Harry T's owed $58,844.02 in additional sales tax for the CBA compensation and ad valorem taxes paid, plus statutory interest and penalties. On September 5, 2003, the Department issued to Harry T's a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (form DR- 1215) for Audit No. A0233016246, stating that Harry T's owed $69,249.79 in taxes, $29,422.03 in penalties, and $6,612.44 in interest for a total of $94,330.64, and that interest continued to accrue on the unpaid assessment. By letter dated October 9, 2003, Harry T's agreed to the portions of the assessment related to food and beverage, but objected to the assessment for all other amounts including the CBA fees. Harry T's paid $10,953.62 for the uncontested assessment amounts. The Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) for audit number A0233016246 on January 27, 2004. The NOPA stated that the total owed by Harry T's was $69,249.79 in taxes, $29,422.03 in penalties, and $11,831.88 for a total of $110,501.72. The NOPA reflected a payment of $10,953.62 paid for the uncontested amounts of the audit assessment, and showed a balance due of $99,548.10 as of the date of the NOPA. The Department received Harry T's formal written protest on April 23, 2004. FACTS RELATED TO RESTAURANT'S AUDIT Petitioner Restaurant was a registered dealer who filed form DR-15 (Sales and Use Tax Return) with the Department for each month of the Restaurant Audit Period. Restaurant used the cash basis of accounting. The Department sent Restaurant a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (Form DR-840) to conduct an audit of Restaurant's books and records for the purposes of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The Department and Restaurant entered into an Audit Agreement stipulating that a sampling method is the most effective, expedient, and adequate method by which to conduct an audit of Restaurant's books and records. Gina Imm examined and sampled the available books and records of Restaurant to determine whether Restaurant properly collected and remitted sales and use tax in compliance with Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Restaurant was the tenant party in leases for the property upon which Restaurant operated its business prior to January 1, 2000. On January 1, 2000, Restaurant terminated its leases for these properties. Restaurant entered a CBA with Legendary prior to the beginning of Restaurant's Audit Period, December 1, 1999 through March 31, 2003. The CBA between Restaurant and Legendary was effective throughout the Restaurant Audit Period. Restaurant operated the "Crystal Beach Coffee Company" and "Tony's By the Sea" on property owned by Floridian Homes of Crystal Beach, Inc. (FHCB), an unrelated third party, during the Restaurant Audit Period. Restaurant operated "Blues" on property owned by an individual, Mr. Peter H. Bos, during the Restaurant Audit Period. 37. Restaurant operated "Rutherford's 465" on property owned by Regatta Bay Investor, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, during the Restaurant Audit Period. Accounting entries were made each month during the Restaurant Audit Period to record the amount of CBA compensation that was accrued by Restaurant to Legendary under the CBA; however, no rent was recorded on the income tax or accounting books of either Restaurant or Legendary during the Restaurant Audit Period. No amount of money labeled as CBA compensation was transferred from Restaurant to Legendary and no payments labeled as "rent" were transferred from Restaurant to Legendary. Based upon the business decisions of the Chief Financial Officer of Legendary, cash was transferred periodically from Restaurant to Legendary, and cash was also transferred from Legendary to Restaurant during the Restaurant Audit Period. Any amounts collected by Restaurant during the Restaurant Audit Period and not paid directly to third parties were distributed periodically to Holdings as corporate dividends. The Department determined that the transfers of cash from Restaurant to Legendary reflected rental consideration paid as CBA compensation, and directed the Department's auditor to assess sales tax against the amounts recorded as CBA compensation accounting entries. Restaurant paid ad valorem taxes due on the property on which Restaurant operated during each year of the Restaurant Audit period. The Department assessed sales tax on the amounts of ad valorem taxes paid by Restaurant on behalf of Holding. The Department determined that Restaurant owed $17,880.71 in additional sales tax for the CBA compensation and ad valorem taxes paid, plus statutory interest and penalties. On September 5, 2003, the Department issued the Restaurant a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Form DR- 1215) for audit number A0231102584, stating that Restaurant owed $26,092.10 in taxes, $8,940.31 in penalties, and $1.808.87 in interest for a total of $36,841.28. The Department noted Restaurant's payment of $8,745.53 for the portions of the assessment related to food and beverage sales, leaving a balance due as of that date of $28,095.75. The Department informed Petitioner Restaurant that interest continued to accrue on the unpaid assessment. The Department issued its NOPA for audit number A0231102584 on March 17, 2004, to Restaurant. The total owed by Restaurant as stated in the NOPA was $26,092.10 in taxes, $8,940.34 in penalties, and $3,378.99 in interest for a total of $38,411.43, less the $8,745.53 already paid, for a total balance due on that date of $29,665.90. Restaurant protested the NOPA, and the Department referred the matter to the Department's Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution Section. On March 28, 2005, the Department issued its Notice of Decision upholding the assessment of tax for the CBA fees and ad valorem taxes paid by Restaurant, and on April 6, 2005, the Department received the Restaurant's formal written protest. FACTS RELATED TO BEACHSIDE'S AUDIT Petitioner Beachside Inn Destin, Inc. (Beachside) was a registered dealer who filed form DR-15 (Sales and Use Tax Return) with the Department for each month during the Beachside Audit period, May 1, 2000, through May 31, 2003. Beachside used the cash basis of accounting during the Beachside Audit Period. Beachside and the Department entered into an Audit Agreement stipulating that a sampling method is the most effective, expedient, and adequate method by which to conduct an audit of Beachside's books and records. Gina Imm, a Tax Auditor for the Department, examined and sampled the available books and records of Beachside to determine whether Beachside properly collected and remitted sales and use tax during the Audit Period in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Legendary Resorts, LLC (Resorts) entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with FHCB and Lester J. Butler, Timothy Fulmer and Mitt Fulmer, three of Resorts' shareholders (the Shareholders), in April 2000, for the acquisition of the Beachside Inn assets by Resorts. Subsequent to the execution of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the parties discovered that a condition precedent to the agreement, i.e., the assumption by Resorts of the major indebtedness of FHCB could not be accomplished as contemplated because it would cause the existing lender to violate its loan consideration limits with respect to the Legendary Group. After discovering this problem, Resorts entered into a Triple-net Lease dated March 1, 2000, with the Shareholders for a beachfront lot and entered into a Triple-net Lease dated March 1, 2000, with FHCB for the Beachside Inn assets that were originally the subject of the Asset Purchase Agreement. These Triple-net Leases were designed to transfer control, and the benefits and burdens of ownership, of the Beachside Inn assets to Resorts pending resolution of the financing contingency and the closing under the Asset Purchase Agreement. Beachside entered into a CBA with Legendary prior to the beginning of the Beachside Audit Period, which was effective throughout the Beachside Audit Period. Although Resorts was the party entitled to all rights, and subject to all obligations, under the Triple-net Leases and Asset Purchase Agreement, the financial accounting and cash management functions and activities during the terms of the Leases were handled by and recorded in Beachside because these leases were designed to permit the Legendary Group to take over the operations of the Beachside Inn assets pending closing and because the Legendary Group intended to place the assets in Beachside under the Asset Purchase Agreement upon the closing of the asset purchase. Resorts and Beachside operated the Beachside Inn assets on property owned by FHCB and the Shareholders during the Beachside Audit Period. Accounting entries were made each month to record the amount of CBA compensation that was accrued by Beachside to Legendary under the CBA but no rent was recorded on the income tax or accounting books of either Beachside or Legendary during the Beachside Audit Period. No money labeled as CBA compensation was transferred from Beachside or Resorts to Legendary and no payments labeled as "rent" were transferred from Beachside or Resorts to Legendary. Based on the business decisions of the Chief Financial Officer of Legendary, cash was transferred periodically from Resorts and/or Beachside to Legendary and from Legendary to Resorts and/or Beachside during the Beachside Audit Period. After Resorts and Beachside operated the Beachside Inn assets for a period of time at a material loss, Resorts was not able to arrange for suitable substitute financing to close on the purchase of the Beachside Inn assets under the Asset Purchase Agreement. Resorts, FHCB and the Shareholders reached an agreement on or about August 15, 2003 (the Termination Date), whereby Resorts terminated its rights under the Asset Purchase Agreement and the two leases. In exchange, the Shareholders transferred ownership of the beachfront lot to Resorts. Federal income tax returns for calendar years 2000, 2001, and 2002 were filed by Resorts which reflected the results of operating the Beachside Inn assets. Following the Termination Date, all of the historic accounting entries made by Beachside reflecting the operation of the Beachside Inn assets were moved from its books and records to the books and records of Resorts for administrative reasons and consistency with the legal documents. Beachside and Resorts made insurance payments on behalf of the owners of the property upon which Resorts operated its business for each year of the Beachside Audit Period. They also made payments for loans on behalf of the owners of the property and paid ad valorem taxes due on the property upon which Resorts operated for each year of the Beachside Audit Period. The Department assessed Beachside sales tax on the amounts of ad valorem taxes, insurance payments and loan payments paid by Beachside on behalf of FHCB and the Shareholders. On October 27, 2003, the Department issued Beachside a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (form DR- 1215) for audit number A030582778, stating that Beachside owed $69,436.01 in taxes, $30,606.77, and $7,635.33 for a total of $107,678.11. The Department noted Beachside's payment of $8,936.01 for the portions of the assessment related to sales of good and beverage, and reflected a balance due after payment of $98,742.10, with interest continuing to accrue.2/ Beachside made an additional payment of $8,936.01 toward the balance due on the uncontested amount of the assessment. On February 19, 2004, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment for audit number A030582778, stating that the total amount owed by Beachside was $69,436.01 in taxes, $30,606.77 in penalties and $8,917.55 in interest for a total of $108,960.33, less $17,872.02 previously paid by Beachside, for a balance as of that date of $91,088.31. On April 16, 2004, Beachside protested the NOPA, and the Department referred the matter to the Department's Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution Section. On March 28, 2005, the Department issued its Notice of Decision upholding the assessment of tax for the payment of ad valorem taxes, insurance and loans by Beachside on behalf of Holding. On April 6, 2005, the Department received the Beachside's formal written protest of audit number A030582778. ADDITIONAL FACTS In addition to the Stipulated Facts submitted by the parties, the undersigned makes the following findings based upon the stipulated exhibits submitted. With respect to the CBAs, the documents provided "the Co-Operator and Manager have agreed to enter into this Agreement for each to provide certain assets to the Business and for Manager to provide, on a cost effective basis, Management Services as required from time to time by the Business." The Agreements state that "each have various assets including fixtures, employees, contractual relationships, knowhow and real estate which they wish to combine to operate a restaurant and bar (the Business)." The CBAs do not name a physical location and do not have provisions for care and repair of the premises; for rights of access and inspection; for eminent domain or condemnation; for default; for provision of utilities or for subletting, all provisions typically seen in a commercial lease. By contrast, the Triple-Net Lease for the Beachside Inn Assets (Stipulated Exhibit 10) contains all of these provisions. The CBAs provide for payment of management services, expenses of the business, and all services and assets necessary for the operations of the business. They are clearly not limited to provision of a location. With respect to the Beachside Assets, the Triple-Net Lease (the Beachside lease) was entered after the Asset Purchase Agreement and expressly acknowledges the existence of that document. However, the Beachside lease by its terms does not provide a right of purchase at a nominal sum at the end of the lease. It provides options to extend the term of the three-year lease for five additional terms of three years each, governed by the same terms and provisions. It also provides a right to purchase the premises at any time during the term of the lease and up to six months after any extensions of the lease which shall be exercised by affecting a closing under the Asset Purchase Agreement. The Beachside Lease for the Beachside Inn assets has other provisions that are relevant to these proceedings. For example, the Beachside Inn lease defines the term "rent" as including the base rent ($100 per month) plus any state sales tax imposed "upon any and all rents or other payments provided in this lease." It provides for surrender of the premises at the expiration of the lease, including terms for removal of any trade fixtures, personal property and signs. Most importantly, the Beachside Inn lease expressly states the following: 26. a. The Lease does not create the relationship of principal and agent or of partnership or of joint venture or of any association between Landlord and Tenant, the sole relationship between the parties hereto being that of Landlord and Tenant. * * * c. This Lease and the Exhibits, if any, attached hereto and forming a part hereof, constitute the entire agreement between Landlord and Tenant affecting the Premises and there are no other agreements, either oral or written, between them other than are herein set forth. . . .
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding that: The Department's assessment for additional sales tax, penalties and interest against Petitioner Harry T's is sustained for the portion attributable to payment of ad valorem taxes only; The Department's assessment for additional sales tax, penalties and interest against Petitioner Legendary Restaurant Associates, Inc., is sustained for the portion attributable to payment of ad valorem taxes only; and The Department's assessment for additional sales tax penalties and interest against Petitioner Beachside Inn, Inc., be sustained in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 27th day of July, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida with its sole place of business located at 6186 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida. Petitioner operates a delicatessen and restaurant in the same building at the above location. Petitioner's restaurant prepares food to be served to paying customers who consume that food at tables provided in the restaurant for that purpose. This food is served by waiters and waitresses who prepare guest checks which separately indicate the amount of sales tax charged thereon. Petitioner's delicatessen sells unprepared food to customers who do not consume that food on the premises and for whom no eating facilities are provided. The items sold by Petitioner's delicatessen are grocery-type items. A common cash register serves the two facilities, which cash register has a separate key for the sale of delicatessen items and a separate key for the sale of restaurant items. The restaurant and delicatessen occupy the same general space and are not separated by a wall or other physical barrier. Petitioner's Exhibit 4 contains a list of those items sold on the delicatessen or grocery side of Petitioner's business. The accuracy of that list was not challenged in this proceeding and it is found as a matter of fact that those items on Petitioner's Exhibit 4 accurately reflect the items sold by Petitioner across his delicatessen counter. That list includes items such as bread, rolls, bagels, milk, beer, soda, catsup, canned goods and various meats such as salami, bologna, franks, fish and ham. Petitioner collects sales tax for those items sold in the restaurant portion of the business and does not collect sales tax on those items sold in the delicatessen portion of the business. The taxable and nontaxable items are segregated and distinguished on the cash register tapes. Petitioner has so conducted his business from its inception in 1959 through the audit period in question. Throughout that period of time Petitioner regularly maintained separate and distinct records sufficient to allocate sales between taxable restaurant sales and nontaxable delicatessen or grocery sales. Petitioner's tax returns have reflected this behavior for the above period of time. When the business first opened Mr. Leo Hoffman, the owner of Petitioner corporation, contacted the Department of Revenue by telephone and was told that the foregoing method of operation was proper. Petitioner has always filed tax returns reflecting this activity and such returns were apparently not questioned until the audit at issue here. The period of time for which Petitioner was audited in this cause was January 1, 1976, to December 31, 1978. On March 12, 1979, Respondent issued a proposed sales and use tax delinquency assessment against Petitioner in the amount of $40,018.14. This assessment was based on the total sales revenue generated by both of Petitioner's enterprises and did not allocate sales revenue between the delicatessen portion of the business and the restaurant portion of the business. On May 10, 1979, the Respondent issued a revised proposed sales tax delinquency assessment against Petitioner in the amount of $33,259.20. This revised assessment was based on the total sales revenue generated by both of Petitioner's separate enterprises and did not allocate sales revenue between the delicatessen portion of the business and the restaurant portion of the business. Petitioner did pay approximately $12,000 in sales tax for the subject audit period. That was the sales tax Petitioner believed he owed for the restaurant portion of his business. The additional assessment is apparently the sales tax (with penalty and interest) Respondent believes is owed for the delicatessen portion of Petitioner's business. The items sold on the delicatessen side of Petitioner's business represent approximately 75 percent of his gross revenue. The items sold on the restaurant, or taxable side of Petitioner's business, represents approximately 25 percent of his gross revenue. The assessment by Respondent against Petitioner was based, at least in part, upon Rule 12A-1.11(1), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner holds a restaurant license from the State of Florida, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Petitioner also holds a retail sales license from Dade County for its delicatessen operation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: To the extent that the assessment for unpaid sales tax is based upon sales made by the delicatessen or grocery side of Petitioner's business, such assessment is invalid and should be withdrawn. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Wolff, Esquire Sparber, Shevin, Rosen, Shapo & Heilbronner, P.A. First Federal Building, 30th Floor One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Linda C. Procta, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact In accordance with Joint Exhibit 1, the parties have stipulated to the following facts: FLAME MEATS, INC. That Flame Meats, Inc., a corporation for profit was incorporated on February 28, 1973. That in May of 1973 the corporation applied for a certificate of registration from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue and was issued such a certificate under sales tax number 60-23-35552-02. That Flame Meats, Inc., did not hold title to the real property on which it conducted its business at 1141 U.S. Highway No. 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, during the audit period. That the corporation had exclusive occupancy of the premises described above on which it conducted its business during the audit period. That as to Flame Meats, Inc., the real property on which it conducted its business was owned by Peter G. Makris, Trustee, and encumbered by mortgages on which Peter G. Makris, Trustee, joined by Gloria Makris his wife, were mortgagors, both deed and mortgage recorded in OR Book 2137, Pages 1247 through 1251 in the records of the clerk of the circuit court, Palm Beach County, Florida. That Flame Meats, Inc., had not made itself liable for the payment of any encumbrances on said real property on which it conducted its business by either signing, co-signing, endorsement or guarantee during the audit. That Flame Meats, Inc., made payments on the mortgage set forth in (4) above, during the audit period, in monthly amounts of $2,109.19 for a total amount of $82,258.41. Flame Meats, Inc., paid the ad valorem real property tax on said real property as described in the deed in (4) above for the tax years 1973, 1974 and 1975 in the yearly amounts respectively of $42.24, $1,651.79 and $1,740.19 for a total amount during the audit period of $3,834.22. The Flame Meats, Inc., paid insurance premiums monthly to the Home Indemnity Company, P. O. Box 1856, Jacksonville, Florida 32216, Policy Number B0BB8307236, for a total amount of $5,622.63 during the audit period. That Flame Meats, Inc., received a sales tax assessment dated October 27, 1976. That Flame Meats, Inc., received the sales tax revised assessment dated January 10, 1977, after an informal conference held in the West Palm Beach Area Office on January 6, 1977. FLAME OF NORTH PALM BEACH, INC. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, inc., a corporation for profit was incorporated on November 4, 1968. That in November, 1968, the corporation applied for a certificate of registration from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue and was issued such a certificate under sales tax number 60-23-26281-08. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc. as a corporation did not hold title to the real property on which it conducted its business at 200 Yacht Club Drive, North Palm Beach, Florida, during the audit period. The corporation had exclusive occupancy of the premises on which it conducted its business during the audit period. That as to the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., the real property on which it conducted its business was owned by Peter G. Makris and Gloria Makris as husband and wife recorded in OR Book 1666, Page 1520 and 1521, in the records of the clerk of the circuit court of Palm Beach County. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., as a corporation had not made itself liable for the payments of any encumbrances on said real property on which it conducted its business by either signing, co-signing or endorsement or guarantee during the audit period. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., made payments on the mortgage which encumbered the real property set forth in (14) above, during the audit period, in monthly amounts of $2,920.21 until September, 1974, then in the amount of $3,300.00 for a total of $123,382.94. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., paid the ad valorem real property tax on said real property as described in the deed in (14) above for the tax years 1973, 1974 and 1975, in the yearly amounts respectively of $6,936.80, $6,342.46, and $6,101.95 for a total amount during the audit period of $19,381.21. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc. paid insurance premiums monthly to the Home Indemnity Company, P. O. Box 1685, Jacksonville, Florida 32216, Policy Number BOP8307327, for a total amount of $4,419.87 during the audit period. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., received the sales tax assessment dated October 27, 1976, represented in Composite Exhibit 6. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, inc., received the sales tax revised assessment, dated January 10, 1977, after an informal conference held in the West Palm Beach Area Office on January 6, 1977. LORD CHUMLEY'S OF JUPITER, INC. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc. a corporation for profit was incorporated on December 12, 1972. That in March of 1973 the corporation applied for a certificate of registration from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue and was issued such a certificate under sales tax number 60-11-17282-09. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc. did not hold title to the real property on which it conducted its business at Highway A-1-A, Ocean Drive, Jupiter, Florida, during the audit period. The corporation has exclusive occupancy of the premises described above on which it conducted its business during the audit period. That as to Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., the real property on which it conducted its business was owned by Peter G. Makris, Trustee, as recorded in OR Book 2099, Page 735 in the records of the clerk of the circuit court of Palm Beach, County, Florida. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., had not made itself liable for the payment of any encumbrances on said real property on which it conducted its business by either signing, co-signing, endorsement or guarantee during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc. made payments on the mortgage which encumbered the real property set forth in (24) above, during the audit period in monthly amounts of $3,247.24 for a total amount of $126,642.36 during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc. paid the ad valorem real property tax on said real property as described in the deed in (24) above for the tax years 1973, 1974 and 1975 in the yearly amounts respectively of $1,862.35, $1,756.01 and $1,731.46, for the total amount during the audit period of $5,349.82. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., paid insurance premiums monthly to the Home Indemnity Company, P. O. Box 1685, Jacksonville, Florida 32216, Policy Number BOP8307329, for a total amount of $17,169.75 during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., received the sales tax assessment dated October 27, 1976. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., received the sales tax revised assessment dated January 10, 1977, after an informal conference held in the West Palm Beach Area Office on January 6, 1977. LORD CHUMLEY'S OF STUART, INC. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., a corporation for profit, was incorporated on November 14, 1973. That in December, 1973, the corporation applied for a certificate of registration from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue and was issued such a certificate under sales tax number 53-07-034130-08. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., did not hold title to the real property on which it conducted its business at 52 U.S. No. 1, Stuart, Florida, during the audit period. The corporation had exclusive occupancy of the premises described above on which it conducted its business during the audit period. That as to Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., the real property on which it conducted its business was owned by Peter G. Makris, Trustee, recorded in OR Book 358, Pages 1283 and 1284, the records of the clerk of the circuit court of Palm Beach County, Florida. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., had not made itself liable for the payment of any encumbrances on said real property on which it conducted its business by either signing, co-signing, endorsement or guarantee during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., made payments on the mortgage which encumbered the real property as set forth in (34) above during the audit period in the monthly amounts of $4,923.70 for a total amount of $132,939.90. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., paid the ad valorem real property tax on said property as described in the deed in (34) above for the tax years 1974 and 1975 in the yearly amounts respectively of $9,680.49 and $10,519.85 for a total amount during the audit period of $20,200.34. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., paid insurance premiums monthly to Home Indemnity Company, P. O. Box 1685, Jacksonville, Florida 32216, Policy Number BOP8307328, for a total amount of $4,274.91 during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc. received the sales tax assessment dated October 27, 1976. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., received the sales tax revised assessment dated January 10, 1977, after an informal conference held in the West Palm Beach Area Office on January 6, 1977. The parties have further stipulated that there were no formal trust agreements between the Makrises and any of the four corporations respecting these transactions. Flame Meats, Inc. operates a retail meat market, a butcher shop, and a liquor store. The other three corporations operate restaurants. There are no formal rental or lease agreements between the Makrises and any of the corporations. Peter G. Makris purchased the properties upon which each of the corporations do business. He purchased the properties for the sole purpose of establishing the businesses. It was never his intention to undertake the business of renting or leasing the property to the corporations. Although he took legal title to the properties, and held legal title during the entire period that is the subject of the instant audits, he did not personally enjoy any of the benefits of ownership. The corporations occupied and controlled the properties. They paid no rent to Makris. They did make payments on outstanding mortgages, which were the obligation of Peter G. Makris, and they paid real property taxes and insurance premiums. These payments did not amount to rental payments, but rather reflected the fact that Makris purchased the properties for the corporations. A further reflection of this relationship is the fact that subsequent to the instant audits, Makris conveyed each of the properties to the respective corporations through quitclaim deeds. He received no consideration for the quitclaim deeds, as he had received no consideration for permitting the corporations to do business on the properties while he held legal title. Makris, either in his personal or trustee capacity, never received any compensation or consideration of any kind for owning the properties.
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.
