The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for violation of Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Resolution of this issue requires a determination of whether Respondent correctly reported and remitted alcoholic beverage surcharges.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Betty Schmidt. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, she held alcoholic beverage license no. 74-00275, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises located at 1161 North U.S. 1, Ormond Beach, Florida. Petitioner's auditor, Muriel Johnson, performs audits on vendors monthly surcharge reports in order to confirm the accuracy of those reports and ensure compliance with statutory and administrative rule requirements. The audit in the instant case covered the reporting period of Respondent from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1997. Alcoholic beverage licensees are afforded an opportunity to elect to report and pay the surcharge by either the purchase method or the sales method. Under the purchase method, a licensee pays the surcharge on alcoholic beverages purchased from authorized distributors. Under the sales method, licensees pay the surcharge on alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on the premises. Respondent elected to report via the sales method. A licensee's reporting under the sales method is audited by the Sales Depletion Method. Under this methodology, a beginning inventory is ascertained. Second, purchases made by the licensee for the audit period are computed. Third, an ending inventory for the audit period is ascertained. Fourth, Gross Gallonage Available For Sale is computed by adding the beginning inventory to the purchases made during the audit period and then subtracting the ending inventory. Fifth, the Net Gallonage Available For Sale during the audit period is calculated by subtracting from the Gross Gallonage an allowance for spillage and a cooking adjustment. The end result is termed the Adjusted Sales Gallonage from which amount the amount of surcharge owed for the audit period is determined. Because Respondent did not keep inventory figures, and based upon her assertion that her inventory was generally the same, Respondent and the auditor agreed upon zero as the starting inventory. Second, purchases of alcoholic beverages by Respondent during the audit period were computed based upon purchase figures provided by Respondent and verified independently through records obtained from distributors. Third, the ending inventory was agreed to be zero. Fourth, The gross gallonage available for sale was determined by adding the beginning inventory (zero) to the purchases made during the audit period and subtracting the ending inventory (also zero). Fifth, adjustments to net gallonage for sale included allowances for spillage and package sales. Notably, the audit revealed that Respondent was treating liquor mixers as wine coolers and paying a lower tax on that basis when in fact wine coolers are taxed at the rate of one ounce of liquor per container at a higher rate. Adjustments for this practice were also made. Finally, the total surcharge due for the audit period was calculated and compared to the amount already reported in order to determine the amount of under- reported or over-reported tax. Respondent sets up various disbursement stations for beer on her property during “bike week” in Daytona Beach. With only one cash register, the sales at the various stations are maintained by hand on clipboards. Additional staff is employed at this time and Respondent is not personally present at each station to monitor sales reporting. Frequent sources of alcoholic beverage sales that are not captured by a license’s cash register include theft, breakage, leakage, spillage, overpouring of drinks, and free drinks. The amounts of alcoholic beverage that are lost to a cash register in these ways are captured by Petitioner’s sales audit method. While Respondent keeps good records, no cash register method can ever capture all of the alcoholic beverages available for consumption on premises and consequently there will always be some discrepancy as the result of a sales method audit. As established by results of Petitioner's audit, Respondent underpaid surcharges for the audit period in the amount of $890. Additionally, it is established that Respondent owes $557.66 in penalties and $193.33 in interest on the payment deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring payment by Respondent in the amount of $1641.10, the amount of total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 23rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Betty Schmidt Smiley's Tap 1161 North U.S. 1 Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Should Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license No. 63-02541, series 2APS, for an establishment known as Green and White Texaco (the licensed premises), located at 3501 Cleveland Heights Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. The Department opened an investigation of the licensed premises after an arrest was made by the Lakeland Police Department related to alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to underage persons by Respondent's employees. James Carl Clinard was identified as the underage Investigative Aide No. 97032 in the Administrative Action filed against Respondent by the Department. On December 5, 1997, James Carl Clinard was 18 years of age (date of birth May 23, 1979) and his appearance on December 5, 1997, was that of a person under 21 years of age. On December 5, 1997, Clinard was working with Officer Leron Strong and Lt. Nelson in an attempt, as an underage Investigative Aide, to purchase an alcoholic beverage from the licensed premises. Before beginning work on December 5, 1997, Clinard was instructed by Strong and Nelson that he was not to attempt to deceive anyone as to his age or appearance. Clinard's identification (a valid State of Florida driver's license which indicated his age to be 18 years) was checked by Lt. Nelson and Officer Strong and found to be legitimate. Clinard's photograph on his identification and his appearance on December 5, 1997, were similar and not misleading as to his age listed on his identification. Clinard was only allowed to carry into the licensed premises his identification and the money furnished by the Department for the purchase of the alcoholic beverage. Sometime around 6:20 p.m. on December 5, 1997, Clinard entered Respondent's licensed premises. Both Strong and Nelson waited outside the licensed premises. After entering the licensed premises, Clinard went to the cooler and selected a bottle of "Bud Light" beer which he brought to the counter. Before selling Clinard the beer, the cashier, Robin Ann Boss asked for and Clinard presented his identification. The cashier sold Clinard the beer, notwithstanding that Clinard's identification showed his age to be 18 years of age. After paying for the beer, Clinard took possession of the beer and exited the licensed premises. Subsequently, Clinard turned the beer over to the Department's agents. Clinard does not remember the cashier giving him a receipt for the beer. Likewise, the agents do not remember Clinard turning in a receipt for the beer. As a result of selling the alcoholic beverage to Clinard, Robin Ann Boss was arrested by Officer Strong. On December 8, 1997, Lt. Nelson mailed Respondent an Official Notice advising Respondent that its employee, Robin Ann Boss, had been "warned or charged" for selling, giving, or serving persons under 21 years of age alcoholic beverages in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes. Crystal Henry was identified as the underage Investigative Aide No. 97028 in the Administrative Action filed against the Respondent by the Department. On January 7, 1998, Henry was 16 years of age (date of birth October 22, 1981) and her appearance on January 7, 1998, was that of person under the age of 21 years. On January 7, 1998, Henry was working with Agent Cleveland McKenzie and Anne Ekstrand in an attempt, as an underage Investigative Aide, to purchase alcoholic beverages or tobacco products from the licensed premises. Before beginning work on January 7, 1998, Henry was instructed by Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand that she was not to attempt to deceive anyone as to her age or appearance. Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand checked Henry's identification (a valid State of Florida driver's license which indicated her age to be 16 years) and found it to be legitimate and found that her identification was not misleading as to her age or her appearance on January 7, 1998. Henry was only allowed to carry into the licensed premises her identification and the money furnished to her by the Department for the purchase of the alcoholic beverage and tobacco product. Sometime around 5:00 p.m. on January 7, 1998, Henry entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the licensed premises, Henry proceeded to the beer cooler and obtained a Bacardi Breezer wine cooler. Henry then walked to the check-out counter with the wine cooler and asked the clerk for a five-pack of Black and Mild Cigars. The sales clerk completed the sale without asking Henry for any form of identification. Henry paid the sales clerk $1.79 for the cigars and $2.09 for the wine cooler. Henry took possession of the wine cooler and cigars and exited the licensed premises. Subsequently, Henry turned the wine cooler and cigars over to Agent McKenzie. Henry does not remember the clerk giving her a receipt for the wine cooler and cigars. Likewise, the agents do not remember Henry turning in a receipt for the wine cooler and cigars. The clerk was identified as Valerie Ann Walker, who was subsequently charged with and arrested for, the sale of an alcoholic beverage and tobacco product to an underage person in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes. A Final Warning was issued to Respondent on January 9, 1998, advising Respondent of the violation and giving Respondent notice that another violation would result in the issuance of an Administrative Action by the Department which could subject Respondent's alcoholic beverage license to formal revocation or suspension proceedings. Enrique Ramos was identified as the underage Investigative Aide No. 97033 in the Administrative Action filed against the Respondent by the Department. On February 17, 1998, Ramos was 18 years of age and his appearance on February 17, 1998, was that of a person under the age of 21 years. On February 17, 1998, Enrique Ramos was working with Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand in an attempt, as an underage Investigative Aide, to purchase alcoholic beverages from the licensed premises. Before beginning work on February 17, 1998, Ramos was instructed by Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand not to attempt to deceive anyone about his age or appearance. Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand checked Ramos' identification (a valid State of Florida driver's license which indicated his age to be 18 years) and found his identification to be legitimate and his identification not misleading as to his age or appearance. Ramos was only allowed to carry into the licensed premises his identification and the money furnished by the Department for the purchase of the alcoholic beverage. At approximately 4:15 p.m. on February 17, 1998, Ramos entered the licensed premises and went to the beer cooler and obtained a six-pack of Budweiser Beer (12-ounce bottles) and approached the check-out counter and placed the beer on the counter. The clerk sold Ramos the beer without checking his identification. Ramos paid the clerk $5.19 for the beer. Ramos took possession of the beer from the clerk and exited the licensed premises where he subsequently turned the beer over to Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand. The clerk was later identified as Ravin E. Bradshaw. Bradshaw was charged with selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes. Respondent's back-up cash register tapes (Respondent's Exhibit number 2) do not reflect a beer sale during the period of time Ramos testified that he purchased the six-pack of Budweiser Beer on February 17, 1998. However, I find the testimonies of Ramos, Agent McKenzie, and Agent Ekstrand to be more credible concerning the purchase of the beer on February 17, 1998, than the back-up cash register tapes or the testimony of Bradshaw, Respondent's clerk and Jung I. Huang, Respondent's manager. The testimony of Respondent's clerks were that they were instructed to "card" or check each alcoholic beverage or tobacco product purchaser's identification to determine if the purchaser was 21 years old or older. However, it was also the practice of Jung Huang and his wife, Yu Chin Lin, a.k.a Michelle, president of Green and White, Inc., to become angry with a clerk who was "carding" every customer. In some instances, both Huang and Michelle would advise a clerk not to card certain customers. Respondent failed to comply with all the training and record-keeping requirements of the Responsible Vendor Program set out in Sections 561.701-561.706, Florida Statutes, notwithstanding the testimony of Jung Huang to the contrary and whose testimony I find lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 63-02541, 2APS for a period of seven days and it is further recommended that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tony Dodds, Esquire 825 East Main Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents' alcoholic beverage licenses should be disciplined for violation of Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Resolution of this issue requires a determination of whether Respondents correctly reported and remitted alcoholic beverage surcharges required for the audit period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. Petitioner claims that Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., was deficient in reporting, surcharge payments, and penalties for the period July 1, 1990, through March 31, 1991, in the total amount of $4,121.80, contrary to Section 561.501, Florida Statutes. Similarly, Petitioner alleges that Respondent Central Restaurants, Inc., was deficient in reporting, surcharge payments, and penalties for the same period in the total amount of $96.72.
Findings Of Fact Respondents are two corporations. Southeast Central Inc., operating as the Pirate's Den Seafood Cafe, holds license number 26-03346 SRX, series 4-COP, for premises located at 5023 Central Restaurants, Inc., operating as the Seafood Place, holds license number 26 Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Domin is president, sole corporate officer and sole stockholder of both corporations. Petitioner's auditor performed audits with regard to records of both Respondents, following their random selection by Petitioner, to verify Respondents' compliance with surcharge requirements imposed by Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, on the retail sales of "on premise consumption" of alcoholic beverages on licensed premises. The audits covered the period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991, for both Respondents, and were performed during the period of early July through August 2, 1991. Alcoholic beverage licensees are afforded an opportunity to elect to report and pay the surcharge by either the purchase method or the sales method. Under the purchase method, a licensee pays the surcharge on alcoholic beverages purchased from authorized distributors. Under the sales method, licensees pay the surcharge on alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on the premises. Each Respondent submitted Petitioner's form DBR 44-005E, reflecting their election of the sales method. Form DBR 44-005E also requires disclosure of the licensee's inventory of alcoholic beverages on hand prior to opening of business on July 1, 1990. A licensee's reporting under the sales method is audited by the Sales Depletion Method. Under this methodology, a beginning inventory is ascertained. Second, purchases made by the licensee for the audit period are computed. Third, an ending inventory for the audit period is ascertained. Fourth, Gross Gallonage Available For Sale is computed by adding the beginning inventory to the purchases made during the audit period and then subtracting the ending inventory. Fifth, the Net Gallonage Available For Sale during the audit period is calculated by subtracting from the Gross Gallonage an allowance for spillage and a cooking adjustment. The end result is termed the Adjusted Sales Gallonage from which amount the amount of surcharge owed for the audit period is determined. Respondents' beginning inventory figures were provided by their employee, Heather Scrape. This finding is further supported by the identification of Scrape's handwriting on Respondents' exhibit number 2 at the final Hearing by Respondent's president as being that of Scrape. The figures written on the exhibit by Scrape correspond to figures earlier provided by Respondents to Petitioner on Form DBR 44-005E and corroborate testimony of Petitioner's auditor that Scrape provided Petitioner's audit personnel with beginning inventory information for Respondents. Scrape, no longer employed by Respondents, still lives and works in the area although she did not testify at the final hearing. Distributor invoices at each Respondent location were used to determine alcoholic beverage purchases by each Respondent for the audit period. The ending inventory for the audit period for each Respondent was provided to Petitioner's auditor by Respondents. The auditor considered a spillage allowance of 10 percent for draft beer and five percent for liquor, bottled or canned beer, wine coolers and wine. The spillage allowance is enunciated in Emergency Rule 7AER 90-5, effective July 1, 1990, and also codified in Rule 7A- 4.063, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents provided no documentation for cooking adjustment amounts. The audit for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., revealed a deficiency in surcharge reporting and payment of $3,294.15 with a late penalty due in the amount of $827.65. The audit for Respondent Central Restaurants, Inc., revealed a deficiency of $84.24 with a late penalty of $16.85 which, after adjustment for spillage allowance, totalled $96.72. At request of Respondents, Petitioner's auditor returned to the premises of each licensee and re-conducted the audit. No substantial corrections were made as a result of this effort with the minor exception of discovery of additional invoices on the premises of Respondent Southeast Central Inc., which increased, by a minor sum, the surcharge amount and penalty to the current amounts. The deficiency for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., represents 55 percent of the total surcharge due for the audit period. The deficiency for Respondent Central Restaurants represents 14 percent of the total surcharge due for the audit period. Petitioner's Form DBR 44-005S states that the surcharge is to be calculated on gallons and/or ounces by reporting licensees. A conversion calculation sheet is provided on the back of the form to assist retailers in converting alcoholic beverage measurements into gallons. Respondents' cash registers record the price and number of alcoholic beverages sold in terms of units, i.e., three glasses of beer, two bottles of beer, one glass of wine, etc. Respondents predetermined how many ounces of an alcoholic beverage should be in a particular drink. Respondents then used this ideal measurement or standard in calculating the surcharge due. The calculation involved multiplying the ideal standard or measurement by the units recorded through the cash registers as sold. There is no actual record made of the amount of alcoholic beverage in a unit sale. Sometime after August 2, 1991, Respondents provided Petitioner's auditor with a copy of a beginning July 1, 1990 inventory report for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., derived from application of the ideal measurement or standard as a multiplier of units of recorded sales. This action by Respondents followed completion of Petitioner's initial audits and notice to Respondents of delinquency in surcharge payment amounts. Respondents presented no explanation as to why this inventory was not provided to Petitioner's auditor in the course of her initial audit. The inventory document was also not authenticated in accordance with Section 90.901, Florida Statutes, and is not credited at this time for establishing a beginning inventory for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., at variance with the beginning inventory reported for this Respondent on Petitioner's form DBR 44-005E. Petitioner permits vendors a period of 30 days within which to remit delinquent surcharge payments following notice of delinquency. Neither Respondent complied with Petitioner's demands to remit delinquent surcharge payments discovered as the result of Petitioner's audit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring payment by Respondent in Case No. 93-0322 in the amount of $4,121,80, the amount of total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due; and requiring payment by Respondent in Case No. 93-0329 of the amount of $96.72, the amount of the total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due in that case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 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 4th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-0322 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Accepted, not verbatim. 6.-7. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 8.-13. Accepted, not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-7. Accepted, not verbatim. 8.-12. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Rejected, not relevant although this is a duty of the auditor. Accepted. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, no evidence presented as to theft or overpouring. Further, Respondents were given benefit of spillage allowance. 17.-18. Rejected, weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert Domin, President Southeast Central, Inc. Central Restaurants, Inc. 4359 Roosevelt Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Jack McCray General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 John Harris, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On July 6, 1977, petitioner caused respondent to be listed, for alleged noncompliance with Section 561.42(3), Florida Statutes (1977), in a notice to distributors of alcoholic beverages, according to which respondent was "prohibited from purchasing . . . any alcoholic beverages except for cash until further notice." Petitioner's exhibit No. 9. On July 29, 1977, Anthony J. Foglietta purchased ten cases of beer for respondent from Universal Brands, Inc., for which he wrote a check in the amount of sixty-four and one half dollars ($64.50). Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. In a separate transaction on the same day, Mr. Foglietta purchased three cases of beer for respondent from Universal Brands, Inc., for which he wrote a check in the amount of nineteen dollars and thirty-five cents ($19.35). Petitioner's exhibit No. 4. For the same amount, on August 9, 1977, Mr. Foglietta purchased three cases of beer for respondent from Universal Brands, Inc., which he paid for by check. Petitioner's exhibit No. 6. Two days later Mr. Foglietta bought three more cases of beer for respondent, which he paid for in cash. On the night of August 5, 1977, Mr. Foglietta purchased 18 to 20 bottles of liquor for respondent from The Beacon Bar, paying with a check in the amount of two hundred forty dollars and seventeen cents ($240.17). Petitioner's exhibit No. 10. On the same date, Mr. Foglietta purchased other liquor for respondent from Three Spirits, Inc., which he paid for with a check in the amount of one hundred seventy-nine dollars and twenty-six cents ($179.26). Petitioner's exhibit No. 11. Four days later Mr. Foglietta, bought for respondent additional alcoholic beverages from Three Spirits, Inc., which he paid for with a check in the amount of sixty-one dollars ($61.00), Petitioner's exhibit No. 12. On August 30, 1977, respondent's bar was well stocked with alcoholic beverages, although the notice issued on July 6, 1977, had not been rescinded. On July 14, 1977, Mr. Foglietta and Mr. Joseph P. Sgroi signed a corporate resolution, which was stamped with the seal of The Hospital Disco, Inc., and left with Landmark First National Bank; the resolution recites that Messrs. Foglietta and Sgroi were operating vice-president and president, respectively, of The Hospital Disco, Inc. Petitioner's exhibit No. 14. Messrs. Foglietta and Sgroi also signed a second corporate resolution to like effect. Petitioner's exhibit No. 13. Petitioner's records indicate that James C. Lorigo owned all of respondent's stock and was respondent's president, vice-president and secretary at the time of the hearing. Petitioner's records did not reflect the filing of any application for a license transfer, at the time of the hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assess a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) against respondent. That petitioner revoke respondent's license on the thirtieth day after entry of this order unless respondent shall by then have complied with Rules 7A- 2.07 and 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code, and unless by then Mr. Foglietta and any other person associated with respondent who is required by law to do so shall comply with Section 561.17, Florida Statutes (1977). DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 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: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 The Hospital Disco, Inc. t/a Carmen's Restaurant and Disco 928 N. Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida F. Ronald Mastriana, Esquire 2750 North Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Lauderdale Copa, Inc., d/b/a The Copa (Respondent or The Copa) should pay an alcoholic beverage surcharge in the amount of $18,960.48 as alleged by the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 2006. The Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Petitioner or Department) claims that the surcharge is owed and due pursuant to Sections 561.502(2) and 561.29, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the alcoholic beverage industry within Florida. § 561.501 Fla. Stat. (2005). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed entity authorized to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to its license number 16-00516, Series 4-COP. The Copa was authorized to sell liquor, wine, and beer at its licensed premises for on-site consumption. Alcoholic beverage sales are subject to a surcharge. § 561.501 Fla. Stat. (2005). In addition to other sales taxes that may be imposed on the sale of the product, an alcoholic beverages licensee (such as the Respondent) must also collect and remit to the Department a surcharge on the sale of the alcoholic beverage. The amount of the surcharge remittance is computed pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the laws and regulations. To confirm accurate reporting and remittance of the surcharge, the Department conducts after-the-fact audits of licensees. In this case, the Department audited The Copa’s alcoholic beverage sales for period from November 1, 2002, through October 31, 2005 (the audit period). There are two methods to review or audit the sales of alcoholic beverages. The inventory method directs the Department to take the beginning inventory plus purchases for the period and subtract the ending inventory (and a spillage allowance) to calculate the sales for the period. The calculated sales volume is then used to derive the surcharge obligation. The second method is based on the actual sales incurred during the audit period. The sales method requires that the licensee keep records to verify the volume of actual sales. The surcharge is due based on the on-premise consumer’s purchase of the alcoholic beverage at the licensed site. Both of the methods described require that the licensee keep and maintain records. The inventory method is verifiable since licensees purchase their stock from vendors also regulated by the Department. On or about October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma struck Florida and crossed to the Atlantic Ocean from the west coast. The storm caused extensive damage to the Respondent's property. The Respondent claims that its beverage records were lost in the storm. The audit in this case used the inventory method to compute the surcharge. By using the distributors’ sales reports the Department calculated a surcharge owed in the amount of $11,257.52. To that amount the Petitioner seeks interest and penalties. The Respondent does not acknowledge that any surcharge is owed. The Respondent maintains that its inventory, records, and package sales information (alcoholic beverages not consumed on the premises) were lost in the storm. The Department gave the Petitioner over five months to obtain records from other sources to refute the audit findings. As of the date of the formal hearing in this case, the Respondent did not have any records to refute the audit findings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a Final Order sustaining the surcharge liability in the amount of $18,960.48. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregg Bernard Lauderdale Copa, Inc., d/b/a The Copa Post Office Box 22961 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33335 Michael J. Wheeler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 6 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Steven M. Hougland, Ph.D., Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for transfer of an alcoholic beverage license should be granted, or denied on the ground that there is a pending disciplinary action against the license holder.
Findings Of Fact Timeliness of DABT's Denial of Application for Transfer On May 26, 1981, petitioner filed with DABT's Miami office an application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license No. 23-276, Series 4-COP. (Testimony of Harris, Caram; Ex. 1.) Upon discovering that the fingerprints of Richard J. Mandell, chief corporate officer of petitioner, were not on file and did not accompany the application, DABT notified Mr. Mandell, no later than June 24, 1981, that his fingerprints would be required. 2/ (Testimony of Harris, Caram.) In response, Mr. Mandell furnished the requested fingerprints to DABT on June 24, 1981. At that time, DABT treated the license application as complete. (Testimony of Harris, Caram.) By letter dated September 22, 1981, DABT notified petitioner that its application was disapproved because of a pending administrative case against the license. (Ex. 2A.) II. Denial of Petitioner's Application When petitioner filed its application for transfer of the alcoholic beverage license in question, administrative proceedings to revoke or suspend the license had been instituted and were pending against the licensee, Astral Liquors, Inc., d/b/a "Foxxy Laidy," a bar and lounge. (Prehearing Stipulation.) These disciplinary proceedings were instituted because of the conviction of Eugene Willner--Astral Liquors, Inc.`s sole stockholder--of a federal felony unrelated to operation of the Foxxy Laidy bar and lounge. (Testimony of Willner.) By written contract dated April 10, 1981, petitioner agreed to purchase from Astral Liquors, Inc., the Foxxy Laidy, located at 6507 Southwest 40th Street, Miami, Florida, for $175,000. Closing was contingent upon DABT approving transfer of the alcoholic license to petitioner. (Ex. 3.) DABT disapproved petitioner's application to transfer the license solely on the ground that there were pending proceedings against the license holder. DABT does not question whether the sale of Foxxy Laidy to petitioner is a bone fide, arms-length transaction or the qualifications of petitioner to hold an alcoholic beverage license. (Testimony of Harris; Ex. 2A, Ex. 8, Ex. 9.) DABT presented no evidence in support of denying petitioner's application other than there were pending administrative proceedings against the licensee. It did not explain or offer any reasons why, in this case, it should exercise its discretion by denying petitioner's application. To the extent its decision rests on non-rule policy considerations, it did not explicate them or subject them to scrutiny at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license No. 23-276, Series 4-COP, be granted. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 9th day of June, 1982.
The Issue The issue in Case no. 92-4204 is whether the Respondent correctly reported and remitted the alcoholic beverage surcharge for the audit period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. The amount claimed by the Department for this case is $5,767.82. The issue in Case no. 92-4205 is whether the Respondent correctly reported and remitted the surcharge for the audit period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. The amount of the audit deficiency alleged by the Department for this case is $4,952.48.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing and administering Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Respondent is the owner and holder of two alcoholic beverage licenses. License no. 58-01411 which is a 4COP SRX license is for Hemingway's Oyster Bar and Caribbean Barbeque, Inc. doing business as Townsend's Fish House, Oyster Bar & Tavern (Fish House). The business location for that license is 35 West Michigan Street, Orlando, Florida. The second license, license no. 58-02757, is also a 4COP SRX license for Hemingway's Oyster Bar and Caribbean Barbeque, Inc. doing business as Townsend's Plantation and Doc Tommy's Tavern (Plantation). That business location is 604 E. Main Street, Apopka, Florida. Following the enactment of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, the Department issued a form designated DBR 44-005E that directed alcoholic beverage licensees to elect a method of reporting and computing the beverage surcharge. The form directed licensees to specify whether the beverage surcharge would be paid based upon purchases or based upon sales. For vendors utilizing the sales method, form DBR 44-005E required a certification of the inventory of alcoholic beverages on hand before opening for business July 1, 1990. Respondent elected to utilize the sales method. The Fish House inventory certified that it had 351.05 gallons of beer (241 bottled, 110.05 draft), 79.48 gallons of wine, and 172.82 gallons of liquor on hand as of the date noted. The Plantation certified it had 183.84 gallons of beer, 139.14 gallons of wine, and 99.46 gallons of liquor. In May, 1991, auditors employed by the Department met with Respondent's employees at each of the licensed premises. An audit for the period July, 1990 through March, 1991, utilizing the depletion method was chosen since the licensee had elected the sales method for reporting and remitting the beverage surcharge. In performing the audit at the Plantation location, the Department accepted that 74.66 gallons of liquor, 39.85 gallons of wine, and 567 gallons of draft beer were used in food preparations and were, therefore, not included in the gallons reported for surcharge purposes (cooking allowance). The invoices for suppliers at the Plantation were reviewed for the following categories of purchases: draft beer, beer (presumably bottled or canned), wine coolers, wine, and liquor. By adding the total of all purchases for the audit period to the beginning inventory, the Department calculated a total volume for the Plantation. In theory, by subtracting the ending inventory from the total volume resulted in the amounts of beverages consumed. From that amount the Department subtracted the cooking allowance noted above, and a spillage amount provided for by rule. As it is presumed some spillage occurs in the mixing and serving of beverages, the rule provides for an offset for spillage by beverage category. Following the procedure outlined above, the auditor calculated that for the audit period, the Plantation had sold 720 gallons of draft beer, 1731.61 gallons of beer, 8.55 gallons of wine coolers, 1090.70 gallons of wine, and 546.27 gallons of liquor. When compared to the reports filed by the Plantation, the auditor determined that in each category noted, the licensee had under reported the volumes sold. The difference for each category was: 494.01 gallons of draft beer, 788.25 gallons of beer, 8.55 gallons of wine coolers, 642.01 gallons of wine, and 244.93 gallons of liquor. The total additional surcharge which should have been remitted based upon the difference not reported was $5,767.82. The auditors used the same approach when reviewing the records for the Fish House. The cooking allowance accepted by the Department for the Fish House was 1400 gallons beer, 67.38 gallons wine, and 9.50 gallons liquor. The spillage allowance was calculated as provided by rule. Additionally, a collection allowance was given for the Fish House in the amount of $195.85. After computing the totals as described above, the auditor found a difference in each of the categories reviewed. After applying the surcharge to the unreported sales amount, the Fish House was cited for a shortage of $4,952.48. The Fish House management claimed, as part of the volume unaccounted for, drinks which were deemed complimentary or free. However, such beverages should have been included in the volume reported as a sale. Respondent also claimed that the spillage allowance provided for by rule was arbitrarily low. Also unconsidered were the losses to inventory due to theft. When such losses are deemed minimal, the theft may go unreported to police or insurance. Cumulatively such losses may be significant. Also unconsidered in reconciling the inventory was the industry practice of "over pours." While discouraged by Respondent, it is not uncommon for bartenders to pour more than the standard measurement of liquor for a good customer. If so, the Respondent's practice of looking to the number of sales to determine ounces sold would have resulted in an under estimating of the ounces dispensed. The auditors did not review the sales tapes or other sales records to confirm the surcharge amounts. The Respondent was unaware of the audit method which would be used to review the surcharge accounting. No insurance or police reports were made for the loss or stolen inventory claimed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in case no. 92-4204 requiring the Respondent to remit an additional surcharge in the amount of $5,767.82. For case no. 92-4205, the Department should require the Respondent to remit an addition surcharge amount of $4,952.48. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 7th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 92-4204 AND 92-4205 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are accepted. Paragraph 4--the first sentence is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or comment. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to governing law or rule. NOTE: Respondent mistakenly has alleged facts or circumstances more appropriately raised by a rule challenge procedure. Section 120.57(1) hearings do not resolve issues related to the lawfulness of rules. Further, challenges to unpromulgated agency policy should be challenged as an unpromulgated rule. Such challenges are not appropriate to this type of proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Richard S. Wright Firstate Tower, Ste. 1550 255 S. Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Clay M. Townsend 35 W. Michigan St. Orlando, FL 32806 Richard W. Scully, Executive Director Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for failure to remit taxes for the months of June and July, 1982. On September 14, 1982, Petitioner served a notice to show cause on the Respondent, Action "1" Distributing, Inc. The notice to show cause alleged that the Respondent had failed to remit $38,692.80 taxes due to have been remitted with Respondent's June 10, 1982, monthly alcoholic beverage report and $5,749.40 required to have been remitted with Respondent's July 10, 1982, monthly alcoholic beverage report. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing, and pursuant to notice, the formal hearing was scheduled for March 16, 1983. At that hearing, the Respondent was represented by Susan Svedin, who after inquiry, was determined to be a proper representative of the company. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as its witnesses Lt. Thomas Stout, Supervising Beverage Agent Officer for the Ft. Myers District, Beverage Officer Robert Baggett, and Sharon Fox, Auditor for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Petitioner offered into evidence seven exhibits which were admitted without objection. Susan Svedin testified on behalf of the Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to be considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that such proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted in this order, they were considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Respondent-holds Alcoholic Beverage License No. 46-945, Series J-DBW. Until it ceased to do business and dissolved, the Respondent operated an alcoholic beverage distributing business located at 3955 Edwards Street, Ft. Myers, Florida. Florida Statute Section 563.05 requires all distributors of malt beverages in Florida to pay an excise tax on beverages sold. Pursuant to Florida Statute 561.55 (1981), the Respondent submitted its wholesale distributors beer tax report for June, 1982, to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2). That report showed that for the calendar month of June, the Respondent had excise taxes due of $38,692.80. Subsequent to the filing of that report, Sharon Fox, an auditor for the Division of Beverage, performed an audit of the June, 1982, report and determined that it was correct and accurate and that the tax reflected in that report as due was correct. The tax in the amount of $38,692.80 was in fact the correct amount due and owing and was never remitted to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent also submitted its monthly beer tax report for July, 1982, and in that report computed the excise tax owed to be 5,759.40. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 3). After receiving this report, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco performed an audit of the matters contained within that report and found them to be correct in all respects. The report correctly stated the tax due the Division of alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco from Respondent to be 5,759.40. Respondent has not paid any portion of that tax.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License No. 46-945, Series J-DBW, be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Janice G. Scott Ms. Susan F. Svedin Staff Attorney 2824 S.E. 18th Court Department of Business Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Aristen Group, L.L.C., d/b/a Pangaea Gryphon (Respondent or Licensee), failed to remit monies owed to the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department or Petitioner) pursuant to the surcharge provisions found in Section 561.501(2), Florida Statutes (2007). If so, the Department seeks to discipline the licensee pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. See § 561.02, Fla. Stat. (2007). At all times material to the allegations of this matter the Respondent has been a licensee holding license number 1616908, series 4-COP. When the Licensee filed its surcharge audit questionnaire it elected to file its surcharge tax based upon the "purchase method." The Department offers alcoholic licensees two methods to compute the alcoholic beverage surcharge tax. The methods are known as the "purchase method" and the "sales method." The "purchase method" calculates the surcharge due to the Department based upon everything purchased during a given month. For the "sales method" the surcharge tax is computed based upon the actual cash register records for the sales during the reporting period. The Department may audit any licensee to compare the amounts remitted with the records maintained by the licensee to verify the correct surcharge tax was paid. In this case, the Licensee was audited for the period September 23, 2004 through August 31, 2006. To verify the surcharge amount was properly remitted, the Department reviewed the records of the beverage distributors used by the Licensee. When the Surcharge Audit Questionnaire was submitted the Respondent identified five suppliers of alcoholic beverages from whom the Licensee purchased beverages for the audit period. Those suppliers then provided their records to establish the beverages sold to the Respondent during the audit period. Based upon those records the Department compared the volume purchased and calculated the surcharge tax due and owing to the state versus the surcharge tax paid to the Petitioner during the audited period. Based upon that comparison, the Department found that the Licensee had failed to remit the correct surcharge payment. More specifically, the Department calculated that the Respondent owed the State a surcharge principle in the amount of $7,975.70. Based upon that amount the Department assessed a penalty in the amount of $4,217.87 along with interest in the amount of $1,409.54. The Respondent does not dispute the calculations for penalty and interest if the principle amount is correct. James Napolitano is the accountant for the Respondent. He was authorized to appear at the hearing on behalf of the Licensee but was unclear as to how the Department computed the surcharge amounts. Mr. Napolitano did not dispute that the Licensee was to remit the surcharge tax based upon the "purchase method." Mr. Napolitano represented that all purchases were to be signed for and opined that if they were, in fact, received by the Licensee the surcharge computation may be correct. Copies of the documents relied upon by the Department were provided to the Licensee at its business address. Mr. Napolitano did not receive them until the date of the hearing. Mr. Napolitano represented he intended to review the invoice records to verify the shipments were actually provided to the Licensee. No further information was offered by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a Final Order providing that the Respondent owes the surcharge tax in the amount of $7,975.70, and assessing a penalty and interest based upon that amount. Further, the Final Order should provide a limited time for the repayment of the delinquent amount. Should the Licensee fail to timely remit the full amount, with penalty and interest, it is recommended that the license be suspended until such time as the amount is paid in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Wheeler, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 40 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 James P. Napolitano 404 Jerusalem Avenue Hicksville, New York 11801 James P. Napolitano 5711 Seminole Way Hollywood, Florida 33314 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Cynthia Hill, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
