The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether state and local option taxes may be imposed upon Petitioner, Co-Op Oil Company, Inc. (“Co-Op Oil”), based upon the gallons of fuel sold at retail stations that were not owned or operated by Co-Op Oil, and to which Co-Op Oil did not consign fuel, but that were voluntarily “linked” to Co-Op Oil for reporting purposes via Department of Revenue (“DOR”) Form DR-120.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: During the audit period, Co-Op Oil was a domestic corporation engaged in the business of wholesale and retail petroleum distribution, and held Florida motor fuel tax license No. 09000447. Since the audit period, Co-Op Oil has exited the retail portion of the petroleum distribution business. DOR is an executive agency of the State of Florida. Among other duties, DOR is charged with administration and enforcement of Florida’s fuel tax laws, pursuant to Chapter 206, Florida Statutes. During the audit period, Co-Op Oil was a wholesale petroleum distributor to marinas, commercial fishermen, construction companies, and other businesses not served by retail facilities. Jim Smith, President of Co-Op Oil, testified that beginning in August, 1989, and continuing through December, 1994, Co-Op Oil requested that certain independent retailers to which Co-Op Oil supplied petroleum be “linked” to Co-Op Oil for retail tax reporting purposes. Mr. Smith testified that he made the decision to request linkage for those retail dealers that he believed incapable of correctly reporting the taxes on their own. His purpose was to ensure that all taxes owed to the state were actually reported and paid. Mr. Smith testified that he understood “linkage” to require Co-Op Oil to report and remit all the fuel taxes that Co-Op Oil actually collected on the gallons of fuel it sold to the linked dealers. Essentially, Co-Op Oil collected and remitted taxes on the net gallons of fuel it delivered to the dealers. DOR does not dispute that Co-Op Oil remitted all the taxes that it actually collected on the net gallons delivered to the linked dealers. However, in reporting taxes for the linked facilities, Co-Op Oil did not report “gains” for those facilities. The concept of “gains” is based on the principle that the volume of a volatile substance such as gasoline changes with the temperature. In the petroleum industry, a “net gallon” is based on the volume of a gallon of fuel at 60 degrees. The industry has developed a formula to account for the difference in volume caused by temperatures above or below 60 degrees. Under the adjustments made pursuant to the formula, a “gallon” of gasoline stored at a temperature below 60 degrees is worth more than a gallon stored at a temperature higher than 60 degrees because of its greater compression. The linked facilities in question were located in and around Pinellas County, where the year-round temperature in their underground tanks is significantly greater than 60 degrees, meaning that gasoline stored therein would reasonably be expected to expand after delivery by Co-Op Oil. This expansion would result in the retail facilities being able to sell marginally more gallons of fuel to the ultimate consumers than the net gallons purchased from Co-Op Oil at the wholesale level. This phenomenon of “gains” at the retail level, along with alleged abuses by dealers, led DOR to successfully persuade the Legislature in 1992 to adopt a statutory requirement that retailers who were not also wholesalers or refiners must collect and remit tax on the additional gallons of fuel sold at the retail level. Section 206.41(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), imposing the constitutional gas tax, contained the typical language: If any licensee owns or operates retail stations or has fuel on consignment at retail stations and has sold more fuel than was purchased tax-paid when the fuel was removed from the rack or than was reported to the state when first purchased or removed from storage tax-free, the licensee must report the additional gallons sold and pay the additional tax, due for the month, on his or her local option gasoline tax return or a return designated by the department. The “rack” is that part of a terminal facility by which petroleum products are loaded into tanker trucks or rail cars. Section 206.01(16), Florida Statutes (1995). In practice, the “rack” also refers to bulk plant facilities operated by wholesalers such as Co-Op Oil. Similar language requiring the reporting and payment of “gains” was included in Section 206.60(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)(county gas tax); Section 206.605(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)(municipal gas tax); Section 336.021(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)(county nine cent gas tax); Section 336.025(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)(local option gas tax); and 336.026(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)(State Comprehensive Enhanced Transportation System Tax). The cited sections from Chapter 336, Florida Statutes (1995) also provided that refiners, importers, wholesalers, and jobbers were to be considered as retail dealers when electing to remit the subject taxes on behalf of retail stations they owned or operated, or where they had fuel on consignment. Administratively, DOR accomplished the collection of the tax on “gains” by requiring dealers to base their tax returns on “metered gallons,” i.e., the reading of gallons at the gas pumps used by retail customers. Petitioner conceded at hearing that retail facilities, when filing their own tax returns, were required to calculate the taxes based on metered gallons. A Florida form DR-120 is the form upon which a motor fuel dealer reports the amount of motor fuel sold and the amount of local county option taxes due. On a monthly basis during the audit period, the Petitioner filed form DR-120 with the Respondent. All taxes reported by Co-Op Oil on these forms during the audit period were calculated based on net gallons sold by Co-Op Oil to the linked dealers. A Florida form DR-119 is the form upon which a motor fuel dealer reports the amount of fuel sold and the amount of state taxes due. On a monthly basis during the audit period, the Petitioner filed form DR-119 with the Respondent. All taxes reported by Co-Op Oil on these forms during the audit period were calculated based on net gallons sold by Co-Op Oil to the linked dealers. During the audit period, DOR had in place no formal mechanism by which a wholesaler such as Co-Op Oil could “link” its tax return to that of a retailer that it neither owned nor operated nor to which it consigned fuel. Mr. Smith credibly testified that in 1989 he was instructed by a DOR employee named Mary Ann Moye that such linkage could be accomplished by written notification to DOR and the actual reporting and collection of taxes by the wholesaler on behalf of the retailer. Peter Steffens, a 22-year DOR employee intimately familiar with the evolution and application of the fuel taxes at issue in this proceeding, testified that while “linkage” did not formally exist in statute or rule, DOR in fact treated “linked” retailers as consigned retailers. In other words, when a wholesaler such as Co-Op Oil linked a retailer’s return to its DR-120, the wholesaler would be treated as if it were consigning fuel to that retailer, whether it was collecting tax at the time of delivery or at the time of retail sale. DOR took the position that a wholesaler such as Co-Op Oil steps into the shoes of its linked retailers, and remains in those shoes after it delivers fuel to the retailers. To avoid the loss of taxes that are unquestionably owed, DOR places upon linked wholesalers a continuing responsibility to see that all taxes are reported and paid even after the fuel is physically delivered to the retailers. Given that DOR did not impose linkage on the wholesalers, but only allowed it at the written request of the wholesalers, this was a reasonable requirement. Because the statutes provided that a consignor must pay tax on “gains,” DOR took the position in its audit that Co-Op Oil was also required to pay “gains” for the stations it linked on its DR-119 and DR-120 tax returns for the audit period. Mr. Smith took the position that Co-Op Oil was required to pay tax only on those net gallons it sold to its retailers because, unlike a consignor, Co-Op Oil itself realized no profit from the “gains” of its retail dealer. Mr. Smith questioned the validity of the entire concept of “gains,” but was well aware of DOR’s position on the issue, having litigated an administrative tax assessment proceeding against DOR in 1993 in which “gains” was a central issue. See Co-Op Oil Company, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 93-2019 (Recommended Order, Sept. 22, 1993). Mr. Smith acknowledged that the tax on “gains” might be owed by the retail dealers, but took the position that DOR should seek payment of that tax directly from the retailers. Mr. Smith testified that he assumed that once the dealers were linked to Co-Op Oil, they would be treated as ultimate consumers for his reporting purposes. Mr. Smith admitted that his assumption was based on his reading of the statutes, not on any guidance he had received from DOR. DOR made initial inquiry to Mr. Smith as to the taxes being reported and paid by Co-Op Oil during telephone conversations in December, 1995. By follow-up letter dated January 4, 1996, Charles E. Pate, Senior Tax Specialist with DOR, wrote to Mr. Smith as follows, in pertinent part: It is not intended that the method of reporting you have chosen should reduce the tax liability that would result if each retail dealer were reporting individually on form DR-121. It is necessary that each dealer you are selling to reconstruct the difference between net and gross gallons for the period 7/92 through the present. All applicable state and local taxes will be assessed on the calculated adjustment. Mr. Pate testified that he made several subsequent requests to Mr. Smith for the information regarding the unreported “gains” of the retailers in question. Mr. Pate stated that, despite Mr. Smith's promises, the requested information was never provided by Co-Op Oil. It was undisputed that sales agreements with its retailers gave Co-Op Oil a contractual right to collect from the retailers any additional fuel tax that might become due. Mr. Smith acknowledged that he never supplied the “gains” information to Mr. Pate, but could not recall ever promising to do so, stating that his understanding of Mr. Pate’s letter was that DOR needed to require each dealer to reconstruct their sales for the audit period. Mr. Smith stated that all but three of the retailers in question were out of business, and that he did not attempt to obtain the information from the others. Mr. Smith’s testimony established that he is very knowledgeable as to fuel tax law. In addition to calculating and paying the taxes for his business since at least 1989, he has attended seminars on the subject, served on a task force made up of DOR and industry representatives that drafted changes to the fuel tax laws, and has acted as a legislative lobbyist on tax issues on behalf of his company and the Florida Petroleum Marketers Association. Given his knowledge, it was unreasonable for him to assume that a tax on “gains” otherwise owed by his retailers need not be paid simply because their tax returns were administratively linked with those of Co-Op Oil. DOR did not attempt directly to force the retailers to reconstruct their records. Mr. Pate did inform Mr. Smith that if Co-Op Oil would produce the records, then DOR would pursue the individual dealers. However, no dealer records were ever produced by Co-Op Oil. Mr. Pate was thus forced to assess the tax based on an estimate. He arrived at this estimate by assuming a one percent “gain” on the net gallons reported by Co-Op Oil for the linked retailers. This was a reasonable and conservative assumption, consistent with the industry standards for calculation of “gains.”
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the assessment of additional tax, penalties, and interest against Co-Op Oil. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Smith, President, Co-Op Oil Company, Inc. 4911 8th Avenue South Gulfport, Florida 33707 John N. Upchurch, Esquire Nicholas Bykowsky, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Tax Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1980, Respondent converted one of its service station fuel tanks from gasoline to diesel. The tank was cleaned by Garrison Petroleum Equipment Company at Pinellas Park. Respondent paid $67.08 for this service. That same day, Respondent received 5,176 gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel from Jack Russell Oil Company, Inc., of Clearwater, a Union 76 dealer. On March 18, 1980, a standards inspector employed by Petitioner took samples from the Respondent's gasoline and diesel pumps. These samples were delivered to Petitioner's portable laboratory in Clearwater where they were analyzed. The gasoline was found to be satisfactory, but the diesel sample showed fuel contamination. The tests were conducted in accordance with the methods and standards established by Rule 5F-2.01(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the "flash point" of the diesel sample was 88 degrees F, but must be 125 degrees F or above to meet the established standard. Petitioner's inspector then returned to the Pronto Car Wash station where he issued a stop-sale order to Respondent. Subsequently, the inspector accepted Respondent's cash bond in lieu of fuel confiscation. This procedure, agreed to by both parties, allowed Respondent to pay $865.36 to the State of Florida and retain the contaminated fuel. Respondent originally paid $5,286.25 for 5,176 gallons of diesel fuel. He had sold 736 gallons of this amount at the time of the stop-sale order on March 18, 1980. Total sales of this diesel fuel amounted to $865.36, which was the amount of bond demanded by Petitioner. Respondent paid $200 to Patriot Oil, Inc., to remove the contaminated fuel, but received a $3,225 credit for this fuel. Respondent does not deny that the fuel was contaminated, but seeks to establish that he acted in good faith. Respondent had the tank cleaned prior to the diesel changeover and dealt with established tank cleaning and fuel wholesaling companies. In addition, he kept the tank locked at all times after delivery of the fuel. Respondent does not contest forfeiture of his bond, but seeks refunds of state and federal taxes paid on the unsold fuel. However, Respondent was correctly informed that refund of tax payments will require him to communicate with agencies which are not parties to this proceeding.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter its order declaring forfeiture of Respondent's $865.36 bond posted in lieu of confiscation of contaminated diesel fuel. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephenson Anderson Pronto Car Wash 220 34th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Whitton, Chief Gasoline and Oil Section Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-8584
The Issue The issues for determination are whether the emergency suspension of Respondents' licenses was proper and whether revocation of those licenses is required.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robinson, an authorized Chevron representative, is the sole proprietor of Jack A. Robinson, Distributor. Respondent R&R Partnership (R&R) is a partnership between Jack A. Robinson and Dee Ann Rich (Rich). Respondent I-10 Corporation (Stacks) is a subchapter S corporation in which Respondent Robinson is a 50 percent shareholder. Rich is the general manager of Jack A. Robinson, Distributor and exercises administrative responsibilities with regard to Respondents Stacks and R & R Corporation. Robinson holds Special Fuel Dealer's License No. 10 Wholesaler's License No. 09000950/9356 issued by Petitioner. Robinson sells diesel fuel and gasoline at wholesale to I unrelated parties. I products at retail. Robinson admits in response to Counts III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XVI, XIX, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXVII, and XXX, of the Notice To Show Cause in DOAH Case No. 93-1563 that $210,876.19 of tax remains due and owing. Rich is Jack A. Robinson's step supervising and preparing tax returns for Robinson. With regard to the $210,876.19 admitted as due and owing, these state funds were collected by Respondent Jack A. Robinson as an agent for the State of Florida but, instead of being remitted to the state, these funds were spent by Respondent in the course of business operation. DOAH Case No. 93-1563 In response to Counts I, II, V, XV, XVII, XXI, XVI, XXVIII, and XXIX of the Notice To Show Cause in DOAH Case No. 93 that $103,452.71 tax is due. As to Count I, the balance for the tax return period of February 1990, for motor fuel tax due is $2,524.14. In regard to Count II, Respondent also owes motor fuel tax in the amount of $26,839.71 for the tax return period of March, 1990. Although Rich requested Respondent's bank to make the appropriate electronic funds transfer to Petitioner, the amount was not received by Petitioner and no explanation was provided by Respondent for the failure of Petitioner to receive this amount. As to Count V, Respondent owes a total motor fuel tax of $12,900.27. The previous total of $36,232.69 was reduced by a late partial payment of $11,562.53, and an additional payment of $11,769.87 on September 25, 1991. No payment of tax was made for the period of March 1992. As to Count XIV, Respondent Robinson filed a tax return for January 1993, motor fuel local option tax in the month of February 1993. The return showed a total tax due of $21,044.62. A collection allowance of $148.56 is shown deducted. No proof of payment of the tax was presented. In regard to Count XVII, a return for the tax period of March 1990, was filed on behalf of Respondent Robinson, declaring a total special fuel tax due of $23,572.82. No evidence was presented that payment was actually made, although Rich testified that a wire transfer payment of that amount was requested by Respondent. With regard to Respondent Robinson, the amounts of tax admitted in responsive pleading together with all counts of the Notice To Show Cause where no evidence or allegation of payment was presented total: Admitted in pleading $210,876.19 Admitted owing for March of 1990 in Motor Fuel and Special Fuel Tax $ 50,412.53 Copies of Returns introduced and alleged to have been filed, but unsupported by Petitioner's records and otherwise unsubstan- tiated by proof (for August of 1992 and January of 1993). $ 35,655.06 No proof of payment presented for balance of November of 1990 tax. $ 12,900.27 Admitted, paid less than due for January 1990; August 1990; and November, 1990. $ 8,058.52 This amount does not include applicable penalties and interest. DOAH Case No. 93-1565 Counts I through IV are admitted by Respondent R & R Partnership as to the amounts owned for a total tax due of $9,189.12. This amount does not include applicable penalties and accrued interest. While R & R reported taxes due on Respondent Robinson's returns, no proof was submitted that these taxes were paid to Petitioner. For the tax period of January, 1993, Rich maintained that a return was filed on behalf of R & R partnership and payment made. However, the copy of the payment check presented at hearing had "2/93" written in pencil as the date of the check and no evidence was presented that the check was presented for payment to Respondent's bank. DOAH CASE NO. 93-1564 With regard to I allegations of Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, X, XI, and XII. As to Counts VI and IX, Respondent denies only that there was improper reporting, not that the amount of tax is not due. Respondent maintains that all taxes collected by Stacks were paid to Respondent Robinson and reported on those returns. The periods of January 1990; February 1990; March 1990; April 1990; August 1990; November 1990; February 1992; correspond to the counts of the Notice To Show Cause to which Stacks denies all allegations. These periods and denied counts match precisely with periods in Counts IX, X, XI, XII, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, of the Notice To Show Cause filed against Respondent Robinson. Robinson admits Counts IX, X, XI, XII, XVI, XVII, XIX, XX, and XXII and presented no proof of payment at hearing with regard to Count XV and XVII. This fact, coupled with testimony that Stacks and R & R taxes were paid to Robinson and reported as line items on his returns, show that Stacks does owe the taxes claimed by Petitioner in the amount of $36,029.45 exclusive of interest and penalties. Debra Swift, a Certified Public Accountant, employed by Petitioner, personally reviewed records of Petitioner in determining the amounts of tax, penalty and interest due from each Respondent. All payments received by Petitioner were credited by Swift in performing her calculations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the fuel licenses of all three Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings: 1.-12. Adopted, though not verbatim. 13.-15. Accepted. 16.-22. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings: 1. Rejected, no record citation. 2.-3. Adopted. 4. Accepted, except for last sentence which is rejected as legal conclusion. 5.-7. Adopted. 8.-9. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings on this point. 10.-12. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 13. Rejected, relevancy. 14.-16. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 17. Adopted by reference. 18.-21. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 22.-24. Rejected, weight of the evidence, no citation. 25._38. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 39.-40. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 41.-42. Adopted by reference. 43.-44. Rejected, subordinate, misconstruction of testimony. 45. Rejected, conclusion of law, weight of the evidence. 46.-48. Rejected, subordinate, argumentative, relevancy. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand L. McCharen Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Timothy J. Warfel Messer, Vickers Suite 701 First Florida Bank Building 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1878 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Linda Lettera General Counsel 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent correctly assessed a fuel use tax or civil penalty against Petitioner for violations of Sections 207.004, and 316.545, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 320, Florida Statutes, for operating a commercial vehicle on a highway in the State of Florida without vehicle registration and fuel tax registration to operate in the state.
Findings Of Fact On June 1, 1991, a commercial vehicle, operated by Unruh Fab, Inc., was stopped on I-10 in Escambia County, Florida at a Department of Transportation weight station. The weight station is the last exit in Florida for westbound vehicles and is the first exit in Florida for eastbound vehicles. The vehicle was not displaying a fuel use tax device, as required by Section 207.004, Florida Statutes, for its interstate operations and was not registered to operate in the State of Florida as required by Chapter 320, Florida Statutes. The driver did not present any fuel use tax registration documentation or International Registration Plan (IRP) registration as an interstate apportioned vehicle.1/ The Department of Transportation Inspector issued a temporary fuel use permit and an I.R.P. trip permit to Respondent to allow the vehicle to proceed on its way. The total cost of the temporary permits was $75.00. The owner of the vehicle was assessed a $50.00 civil penalty for violation of Chapter 207, Florida Statutes. See, Section 316.545(4), Florida Statutes. Additionally, while the truck was at the weight station, the Department of Transportation Inspector weighed the vehicle. The truck weighed 42,920 pounds. Under Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's vehicle's weight could not exceed 35,000 pounds. Petitioner's vehicle exceeded the 35,000 pound legal weight by 7,920 pounds. A penalty of 5 cents a pound was assessed for each pound over the legal weight resulting in a penalty of $396.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding that the fee and penalty totaling $521.00 was correctly assessed Unrah Fab, Inc., by the Department of Transportation, under provisions of Sections 207.004 and 316.545, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 320, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 1st day of June, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of motor fuel taxes paid for motor fuel exported from Florida when Petitioner was not licensed as an exporter at the time of the transactions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of purchasing and reselling motor fuel. Petitioner, whose principle place of business is 1201 Oakfield Drive, Brandon, Florida 33509, does business within and without the State of Florida. Petitioner currently has a Florida Fuel Tax License, which is number 59-2150510. On April 5, 2004, and May 7, 12, and 13, 2004, upon Petitioner's orders, Kenan Transport loaded diesel fuel at the Marathon facility in Jacksonville, Florida, and delivered the fuel to Petitioner's Kingsland, Georgia, location. Daniel Way, the driver employed by Kenan Transport, delivered the April 5, 2004; May 7, 2004; May 12, 2004; and May 13, 2004, fuel loads to Petitioner's Kingsland, Georgia, location. 6. For the April 5, 2004; May 7, 2004; May 12, 2004; and May 13, 2004, fuel deliveries to Petitioner's Kingsland, Georgia, facility, Petitioner paid a total of $8,775.16 in Florida fuel taxes. The amount of Florida fuel taxes paid for each delivery was as follows: $2,192.99, for the April 5, 2004, delivery; $2,187.77, for the May 7, 2004, delivery; $2,187.20, for the May 12, 2004, delivery; and $2,187.20, for the May 13, 2004, delivery. At the time the four fuel deliveries noted in paragraphs 4 and 5 above were made to Petitioner's Kingsland, Georgia, facility, Petitioner did not have an exporter fuel license. Petitioner obtained an exporter fuel license that became effective December 1, 2004. The parties stipulated to the findings in paragraphs 1 through 9. Petitioner asserts that the Department should refund the fuel taxes it paid because, in the four transactions, Petitioner's account was mistakenly billed for the fuel. Gowan Oil Company (Gowan) is a distributor based in Folkston, Georgia, and has contracts with many fuel terminals in Jacksonville. Pursuant to an arrangement between Petitioner and Gowan, Petitioner did not usually buy fuel from any of the terminals in Jacksonville. Instead, Petitioner bought fuel for its truck stop in Georgia from Gowan, since Gowan could buy fuel at the Jacksonville terminals for less than Petitioner could. Depending on the price of fuel on a particular day, Petitioner would call Kenan Transport and tell the company to pick up fuel from a particular terminal in Jacksonville. The instructions relative to the above transactions were for the driver to pick up BP fuel and to put it on Gowan's account. Notwithstanding the specific instructions given to the driver, he made two mistakes with respect to the four fuel purchases. He not only mistakenly picked up the wrong fuel, Marathon fuel, but he also put the fuel he picked up on Petitioner's account, not on Gowan's account. The mistake made by the Kenan Transport driver is a common mistake made by transport drivers, who are "hauling out of multiple terminals every day." Drivers have loading cards for all of the accounts on which they pick up fuel. When picking up fuel, the driver should use the loading card which corresponds to the account for that particular load. In the four transactions that are at issue in this proceeding, the driver "loaded" the card for Petitioner's account, not the card for Gowan's account. Petitioner did not have an export license at the time of the transactions. Therefore, Marathon properly billed Petitioner for the Florida fuel taxes on the fuel that was picked up in Jacksonville, Florida, charged on Petitioner's account, and delivered to Petitioner's truck stop in Kingsland, Georgia. Petitioner tried unsuccessfully to have Marathon bill the subject fuel purchases to Gowan. If Gowan had been billed, it would not have been required to pay Florida fuel taxes on the four fuel purchases because it had an export license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a refund of fuel taxes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 28th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board's decision in this matter is proper; a determination that necessarily requires a finding of whether Respondent is liable, in two separate instances, for payment of a civil penalty for commission of the infraction of interstate operation of a commercial motor vehicle without first obtaining a fuel use permit.
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1990, Respondent was driving on Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) in a three axle truck powered by motor fuel. He stopped the vehicle at Petitioner's weigh station located on I-95 near Yulee, Florida. Petitioner's station law enforcement personnel observed that there was no fuel tax identification on the truck and no temporary fuel tax permit. Respondent was assessed a civil penalty by weigh station law enforcement personnel of $50 as a result of Respondent's failure to comply with the State of Florida's fuel tax registration requirements. He was also issued a 10 day temporary fuel tax permit for a fee of $45 to enable the vehicle to proceed from the weigh station. On December 4, 1990, Respondent was again driving on Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) in the same three axle truck. Again, he stopped the vehicle at Petitioner's weigh station located on I-95 near Yulee, Florida. Petitioner's station law enforcement personnel again observed that there was no fuel tax identification on the truck and no temporary fuel tax permit. Respondent informed station personnel that an application for the appropriate permit had been made, but offered no documentation to support this claim. Respondent was assessed another civil penalty by weigh station law enforcement personnel of $50 as a result of this second failure to comply with the State of Florida's fuel tax registration requirements. He issued a second 10 day temporary fuel tax permit for a fee of $45 to enable the vehicle to proceed from the weigh station. Respondent requested that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board review the civil penalty assessment. Subsequently, the Board met on May 9, 1991, and reviewed the civil penalty assessed against Respondent on each occasion. The Board determined that a refund of the penalties paid by Respondent was not appropriate. By written request filed with Petitioner on June 10, 1991, Respondent requested a formal hearing regarding the propriety of the penalties assessed against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered confirming the imposition of two civil penalties of $50 each upon Respondent and affirming Respondent's two payments of $45 for the two fuel use permits received in conjunction with the assessment of the civil penalties. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.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 16th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Jay O. Barber, Esq. Department Of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Kenneth R. Koozer 5469 Riverbluff Circle Sarasota, FL 34231 General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact In a letter dated April 13, 1990, the Department informed the Petitioner, Cherokee Rental And Construction Co., Inc., that it was denying the Petitioner's request for refund of the $95.00 fuel tax and civil penalty assessment it had previously paid to the Department. In a letter received by the Department on February 13, 1990, the Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to contest the Department's decision. The address included on the Petitioner's letter was the address used by the Department to notify the Petitioner of its decision to deny its request for a refund. A Notice of Assignment and Order was issued on June 1, 1990, giving the parties an opportunity to provide the undersigned with suggested dates and a suggested place for the formal hearing. The information was to be provided within ten days of the date of the Notice. This Notice was sent by United States mail to the Petitioner at the address listed in its letter requesting a formal hearing. Neither party responded to the Notice. On July 12, 1990, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting the formal hearing for 11:00 a.m., September 11, 1990. The location of the hearing was listed in the Notice. The Notice of Hearing was sent by United States mail to the Petitioner at the address listed in his letter requesting a formal hearing. The Petitioner did not appear at the place set for the formal hearing at the date and time specified on the Notice of Hearing. The Department was present at the hearing. The Petitioner did not request a continuance of the formal hearing or notify the undersigned that he would not be able to appear at the formal hearing. After waiting fifteen minutes for the Petitioner to appear, the hearing was commenced. At the commencement of the formal hearing the Department was informed that it could proceed with the formal hearing or, since Petitioner had the burden of proof in this case, move for dismissal of the case. The Department elected to make an ore tenus motion for dismissal. The Department was informed that a Recommended Order would be issued recommending dismissal of this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's request for hearing in this case for failure to appear at the final hearing. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Read Cherokee Rental & Construction Co., Inc. Post Office Box 850606 Mobile, Alabama 36685 Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue There is little controversy as to the facts in this cause. The issue is essentially a legal issue and is stated as follows: When parties act in reliance and in conformity to a prior construction by an agency of a statute or rule, should the rights gained and positions taken by said parties be impaired by a different construction of said statute by the agency? Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders filed March 17 and 18, 1983. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based on the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Vanguard Investment Company, is a Florida corporation with its principal offices at 440 Northeast 92nd Street, Miami Shores, Florida 33138. On or about March 3, 1981, Vanguard purchased an aircraft described as a Turbo Commander, serial number N9RN, from Thunderbird Aviation, Inc., for a purchase price of $120,000 plus $4,800 in sales tax. The sale price plus the sales tax was paid by Vanguard to Thunderbird, which remitted the $4,800 in sales tax to the Department of Revenue (DOR) less a three percent discount as authorized by law. On February 27, 1981, Vanguard had executed a lease of said aircraft to General Development Corporation for a term of two years commencing on March 1, 1981, contingent upon Vanguard's purchase of said aircraft from Thunderbird. Prior to March 1, 1981, General Development had leased said aircraft from Thunderbird, and the least terminated on February 28, 1981. Vanguard purchased said aircraft for the sole purpose and in anticipation of continuing its lease to General Development. Vanguard never took possession or control of said aircraft, which remained in General Development's possession at Opa-locka Airport in Dade County, Florida. No controversy exists that all sales tax payable under General Development's lease of the aircraft, both with Thunderbird and subsequently with Vanguard, had been remitted to DOR with no break in continuity of the lease as a result of the change in ownership of the aircraft on or about March 1, 1981. At the time Vanguard purchased the aircraft from Thunderbird, Vanguard had not applied for or received a sales and use tax registration number pursuant to Rule 12A-1.38, Florida Administrative Code. Vanguard applied for said sales and use tax registration number on or about April 2, 1981, approximately 30 days after the purchase of said aircraft. The sales and use tax registration number was granted by DOR on or about April 23, 1981. Shortly thereafter, Vanguard inquired of DOR concerning a refund of the $4,800 in sales tax paid on the aircraft plus the three percent discount taken by Thunderbird. In lieu of Vanguard's providing Thunderbird a resale certificate and having Thunderbird apply for the sales tax refund, it was suggested that Vanguard obtain an assignment of rights from Thunderbird and apply directly for the refund because Thunderbird had been dissolved immediately after the sale of the aircraft to Vanguard. Acquisition of the assignment of rights from Thunderbird by Vanguard was delayed by the dissolution of Thunderbird and the death of Thunderbird's principal officer. Vanguard received the assignment of rights from Thunderbird on or about July 1, 1982, and immediately applied for a refund of the sales tax. Said application for refund was well within the three years permitted by Florida law to apply for a sales tax refund. On November 22, 1982, the Office of Comptroller (OOC) notified Vanguard of its intent to deny Vanguard's application for the sales tax refund because Vanguard had failed to obtain a sales and use tax registration number prior to purchasing the aircraft from Thunderbird. At the time of the purchase, it was the policy of DOR to permit individuals to apply late for a sales and use tax registration number and not to deny refunds on the basis that the applicant did not have the sales and use tax registration number at the time of the taxable purchase. On or about July 1, 1982, this policy of DOR was altered to conform with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in State Department of Revenue v. Robert N. Anderson, 403 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1981). Vanguard was aware of the DOR policy at the time of the sale, relied on that policy, and conformed to that policy. It was clearly stated that had Vanguard applied for its refund even a month earlier, in June of 1982, the refund would have been approved under the then-existing policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the application of Vanguard Investment Company for refund of sales tax be approved, and that said refund be paid by the Office of Comptroller. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 25th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Kaplan, Esquire 907 DuPont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 William G. Capko, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas L. Barnhart, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Office of Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), duly licensed in Florida. Petitioner buys LPG in Florida and resells it to dealers who in turn sell most of it at retail, but use part of it as fuel for their trucks. During the period July 1, 1975, through February 28, 1977, neither petitioner nor any of its customers paid any tax on account of petitioner's sales of LPG, other than LPG used by its customers to propel trucks. Petitioner's customers kept records as to how much LPG was sold by them for home cooking or heating use by their customers, the ultimate consumers. Until the summer of 1977, petitioner's customers who used LPG as truck fuel kept records of how far the trucks so fueled were driven. Using the resulting mileage figure, they calculated the amount of LPG that had been used as truck fuel. Until the summer of 1977, petitioner collected from its customers a tax of eight cents ($.08) per gallon on LPG used as truck fuel. During the period from July 1, 1975, through February 28, 1977, none of petitioner's Florida customers held Florida dealer's licenses, except Gene Lewis Auto Brokers, which obtained a license as a special fuel dealer in August of 1976. Also in August of 1976, Gene Lewis Auto Brokers purchased 2,052 gallons of LPG from petitioner, on which no tax was paid. Thereafter, the same customer bought 41,011 gallons from petitioner in the period ending February, 1977, on which no tax was paid. Petitioner made tax returns monthly, using forms furnished by respondent. With respect to respondent's Form DR-115-F, styled "Special Fuel Sold . . . Within the State to Licensed Dealers Tax-Free," general instructions furnished to petitioner by respondent provided: To be used in support of claims for exemp- tion ... for sales ... to other licensed dealers. Signed resale certificates ... which bear the name and address of the pur- chaser and the number of his dealer's license are required to be retained in the seller's permanent file .... Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. (emphasis supplied) Monthly, petitioner listed on Form DR-115-F the amounts of LPG sold to its Florida customers, less amounts its Florida customers advised had been used to propel trucks. On another form furnished by respondent, Form DR-115-J, petitioner listed monthly, by county, the LPG used by its Florida customers to propel motor vehicles and on which petitioner had collected tax at the rate of eight cents ($.08) per gallon. At the time petitioner filed its monthly tax return, it forwarded to respondent the taxes it had collected from its Florida customers. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which appears as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's assessment be upheld with respect to petitioner's tax deficiency, except for the portion attributable to sales by petitioner to Gene Lewis Auto Brokers after August of 1976, being three thousand two hundred eighty and eighty-eight hundredths dollars ($3,280.88). That interest and penalty be adjusted accordingly. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John Radey, Esquire Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 APPENDIX Paragraph one of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, except that the evidence did not show that petitioner's customers used LPG for home heating or cooking, only that persons to whom petitioner's customers sold used the LPG in this fashion. Paragraph two of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted in substance. Paragraph three of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted in large part. The gist of the information supplied to petitioner by its dealers was that LPG not used by them would be resold to domestic users. Although respondent did not undertake to determine whether petitioner listed the same LPG as taxable and as tax-exempt on the same tax return, there is no reason to believe that petitioner did so. Paragraph four of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, except that petitioner's tax returns were inaccurate as to its customers' status as dealers. The final three paragraphs of petitioner's proposed findings of fact accurately reflect evidence adduced at the hearing, but are not relevant to a decision of this controversy.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the bond it posted in lieu of confiscation of allegedly mislabelled gasoline products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, AGI Service Corporation, owns and operates a Citgo service station located at 1599 West Flagler Street in Miami, Florida. The service station sells regular unleaded, unleaded plus and unleaded premium gasoline to the public. On February 18, 1991, James Carpinelli, the Respondent's inspector, visited the station to conduct an inspection and obtain samples of the gasoline Petitioner was offering for sale to the consuming public from its tanks and related gasoline pumps. Mr. Carpinelli took samples of all three types of gasoline offered for sale by Petitioner. The samples were forwarded to the Respondent's laboratory and were tested to determine whether they met Departmental standards for each type of gasoline. The Petitioner's "premium unleaded" pump indicated the octane or Anti Knock Index of the gasoline was 93. The "regular unleaded" pump indicated that the octane level was 87. The laboratory analysis of the samples revealed that the octane level of the gasoline taken from the "premium unleaded" pump was 87.4. The octane level of the gasoline taken from the "regular unleaded" pump was 93.0. Upon discovering the discrepancy in the octane levels, the Respondent seized the gasoline and immediately allowed the Petitioner to post a bond in the amount of $1,000. Upon the posting of the bond, the product was released back to the possession of the Petitioner and was allowed to be sold after the pumps were relabelled. Petitioner acquired ownership of the service station four days prior to the time of the inspection. At the time they opened the station, the new owners labelled the pumps based upon the information provided to them by the prior owners. The new owners had limited experience in the petroleum business and followed the guidance of the prior owners regarding labelling the pumps. It is clear that the pumps were inadvertently mislabelled based upon the information provided by the prior owners. The new owners sold "premium unleaded" at the price of "regular unleaded" and visa versa. Because more "premium unleaded" was sold at the price for regular, Petitioner lost money as a result of the mislabelling. The Department seeks to assess the full amount of the bond against the Petitioner in this proceeding. Respondent calculated the number of gallons of mislabelled gasoline that was sold based upon a delivery date of February 13, 1991. Those calculations indicate that 2,498 gallons were sold at a price of $1.259 per gallon. However, Respondent's calculations appear to begin at a time prior to Petitioner's ownership of the station. No evidence was presented as to how many gallons were sold while Petitioner owned the station. In addition, it is not clear when the mislabeling was done. Thus, no clear evidence was presented as to how many mislabeled gallons were sold by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order granting the request of the Respondent for a refund of the bond posted and that the Department rescind its assessment in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 4th day of October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: LOUIS PASCALI AND DONATO PASCALI QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVES AGI SERVICE CORPORATION 1599 WEST FLAGLER STREET MIAMI, FL 33147 JAMES R. KELLY, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES ROOM 514, MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 BRENDA HYATT, CHIEF BUREAU OF LICENSING & BOND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 508 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
