The Issue The factual issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to disclose certain information, of which he had knowledge, which would have adversely impacted the consideration by the Board of his financial responsibility. The legal issue raised by the Administrative Complaint is whether the failure to disclose such information constitutes a violation of Section 489.127(1)(d) , and thereby a violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979). However, neither allegation alleges fraud on an application. The case should be dismissed.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 26, 1980, the Respondent filed for a change of status as a certified general contractor from a company to operating as an individual. On his application, Respondent answered in the negative the following questions: Question 16 (b): Are there now any unpaid past-due bills or claims for labor, materials, or services, as a result of a construction operation of any person named in `(i) below' or any organizations in which any such person was a member of the personnel? Question 16(c): "Are there now any liens, suits, or judgments of record or pending as a result of a construction operation of any person named in `(i) below' or any organiation in which any such person was a member of the personnel?' Question 16(d): Are there now any liens of record by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or the State of Florida Corporate Tax Division against any person named in `(i) below' or any organization in which any person was a member of the personnel? Evidence was received that a number of judgments and liens had been obtained against t Donald B. Richards personally or as a member or qualifier of a registered or certified company, specifically Acme Aluminum Sales and Service. There is no credible or substantial evidence that the judgment of Nu-Vue Industries, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7), arose from contracting operations in which Respondent was involved. There is no substantial and competent evidence that the notes upon which the judgment of Commercial National Bank (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) was obtained related to contracting operations. (Tr. 17, 19.) Tax liens for nonpayment of unemployment compensation were introduced. These liens were mailed to 2120 West Parker Street, Lakeland, Florida. Question 16(d) on the subject application limits tax liens to those of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the Corporate Tax Division of the State of Florida. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9 (Composite).] The custodian of the records for Florida Industries, Inc., could not recall what Respondent purchased from that company or why Respondent purchased it. The records custodian could only say that the items were probably building materials, and could not way whether the company's judgment had been satisfied. (See Deposition of Saul Rachelson; pages 5, 7.) The records of the judgment reflect that it was sent to 446 North Wabash, Lakeland, Florida. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 10.) The records of the Board do not reflect that Respondent ever resided or worked at 446 North Wabash, Lakeland, Florida. Said address is also listed within the judgment as the address of John Stinson, who was Respondent's business partner at the time. There is no substantial evidence that this judgment was related to contracting, that Respondent was aware of this judgment, or that the judgment was outstanding at the time Respondent made his application on March 26, 1980. The judgment obtained by Wells Carmel Aluminum, Inc., on May 4, 1977, was a default judgment. The attorney for Wells Carmel Aluminum did not know whether the items purchased, from which the default judgment arose, were construction materials and did not know why Respondent had purchased them. (Tr. 28.) There is no substantial and competent evidence that these materials were related to contracting. The judgment obtained by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company dated June 4, 1978, was related to Respondent's business. The business of Acme Aluminum Sales and Service was contracting. However, the judgment reflects on its face that it was sent to 2120 West Park Street, Lakeland, Florida 33001, on or about the date that it was entered. By said time, the business was no longer operating at that address, and said property had returned to the possession of the original owner, Arley Propes. The evidence indicates that Respondent had no knowledge of State Farm's judgment. The judgment obtained by the Pope Shopper Shopping News, Inc., on February 7, 1970, was related to Respondent's contracting business. A copy of the judgment was sent to Respondent's home address at 630 Candyce Avenue, Lakeland, Florida 33801. The Respondent had knowledge of this judgment and that it was related to his contracting activities. On November 3, 1977, Richard Allen obtained a judgment against Respondent arising from Respondent's failure to correct certain conditions on a contracting job which he had done for Allen. A copy of this judgment was sent to 2120 West Parker Street, Lakeland, Florida 33801. By that time, Respondent was no longer doing business at that address. The evidence indicates that Respondent had no knowledge of the judgment obtained by Allen.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board take no action against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald B. Richards 630 Candyce Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33801 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained here, the Respondents, Thomas C. Pluto, Kathleen M. Pluto, and Pluto Realty, Inc., were licensed as real estate brokers and a brokerage corporation respectively. On October 23, 1985, Karen S. Hicks, listed certain property owned by her, located at 1537 Oak Park Avenue, Sarasota, Florida, for sale with Allstar Realty of Sarasota, Inc., (Allstar), utilizing Annette Schmidt as broker. On or about November 25, 1985, Respondent Thomas C. Pluto entered into a contract for sale between himself/or assigns as buyer and Karen Hicks as seller. The contract was for the sale of the property mentioned above. Respondent, Thomas Pluto was representing an investor who was to be the actual buyer and Mr. Pluto neither intended nor desired to purchase the property for himself. Because of the unfavorable interest rate then existing on the mortgage in effect on the property, which resulted in a negative amortization and a less favorable purchase opportunity, the warranty deed, mortgage deed, and closing statement to be executed in closing of the contract of sale herein were to be back dated to September 12, 1985 in order to take advantage of certain peculiarities of the federal income tax law pertinent thereto. By Respondent's own admission, had this sale been consummated in this fashion, it would have constituted at least a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Closing was held on December 27, 1985. Prior to the closing, the intended buyer of the property, Mr. Pluto's investor, backed out of the deal and Mr. Pluto so informed Ms. Hicks through her agent, Ms. Schmidt. Because Ms. Hicks was anxious to close, because of the Christmas season, and because Mr. Pluto felt that he still might be able to find an investor to take over the property, Mr. Pluto agreed to go through with the purchase and as a part of the closing, paid Ms. Schmidt a $1,000.00 split commission. When the documentation was prepared for the December 27, 1985 closing, Thomas C. Pluto was shown as the buyer, but the mortgage deed, the warranty deed, and the closing statements all reflected a date of September 12, 1985. These documents were drafted and prepared by Respondent, Kathleen Pluto, who received her instructions as to what date to utilize thereon from Respondent, Thomas C. Pluto. The date of September 12, 1985, was initially dictated by the accountant for the original proposed investor who stipulated that date be used in order to take advantage of certain tax advantages possibly involved. According to Mr. Pluto and Mrs. Pluto, independent of each other, Mr. Pluto never thought to change it, and she merely assumed the back date was still to be used. This back dating of documents was, however, even by admission by the Respondent, Thomas Pluto, an improper act. Since the closing did not go through, however, the significance of the back dating relates only to the issue of the intent of Mr. Pluto at the time he took title to the property. By the middle of February, 1986, Mr. Pluto was still unable to secure another buyer for the property and on February 21, 1986, he submitted a written request for an assumption package to the mortgagee, Cameron-Brown, Incorporated. This written request was followed up by a verbal request on February 24 and again on March 18 and April 8, 1986. The mortgage assumption package was ultimately received by Mr. Pluto on April 11, 1986 and was completed and returned to the mortgagee on April 15, 1986. It was, however, either never received or was misplaced by Cameron-Brown. On June 27, and again on July 8 - 21, 1986, another assumption package was requested which was received on July 23, 1986, and returned completed to the mortgage company on July 25, 1986. The assumption was ultimately finalized on August 12, 1986, with credit being given back to September 12, 1985, at the reguest of Ms. Hicks. In the interim, all mortgage payments were timely made by Mr. Pluto. The Respondents did not claim a tax deduction or any tax advantage on the basis of this transaction nor was it ever their intent that they gain a personal tax advantage from it. Petitioner alleges that Mr. Pluto left the original back date on the deed when he took title to the property to make the property more attractive to another buyer to whom the property could have been transferred and who could have taken advantage of the earlier date for tax purposes. Mr. Pluto, on the other hand, contends that was not his intention and that if that had been his intention, he would not have taken title to the property when he did in his own name because that would require another complete closing and the resultant additional fees and charges inherent therein. This would have made the property less desirable because of the already high interest rate, the negative amortization and other financial problems. In light of the above, it appears that Mr. Pluto was quite willing to participate in a potentially illegal scheme and at the time he executed the documents for the final closing, notwithstanding he claims he did not realize the date had not been changed, he was guilty of at the very least, culpable negligence and dishonest dealing by scheme. The fact that he paid the selling broker a commission after alleging he went through with the purchase as a favor to her, tends to weaken the credibility of his story.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Thomas C. Pluto's, license be suspended for 90 days and that he be reprimanded but that the execution of the suspension be stayed for one year with provision for automatic remission at the end thereof; that Respondent, Kathleen M. Pluto, be reprimanded; and that the charges relating to Pluto Realty, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3084 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY THE PETITIONER 1 Accepted and incorporated herein. 2&3 Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6&7 Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10&11 Accepted. 12 Accepted and incorporated herein. BY THE RESPONDENTS 1-3 Accepted and incorporated herein. 4&5 Accepted. 6-10 Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted except for the words, "through inadvertence, oversight, or mistake" Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted except for the words, "by oversight and error" Accepted. 19&20 Accepted and incorporated herein. 21 Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert P. Rosin, Esquire 1900 Main Street, Suite 210 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Kathleen M. Pluto, pro se 8415 Midnight Pass Road Sarasota, Florida 34242 Darlene F. Keller Acting Executive Director DPR, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in her employment based on her gender or race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Janet Cartwright is a white female who formerly worked at the Department of Revenue (DOR or the Department) as a tax auditor. Ms. Cartwright began employment with the Department of Revenue May 1, 2000, as a tax auditor at the Atlanta Service Center. During her employment with DOR, she had four supervisors: Emmanuel Minta, Ron Lee-Owen, Glynn Walters and Evonne Jones Schultz. The function of a tax auditor is to audit all pertinent books and records of taxpayers assigned to them. Auditors are required to maintain a working knowledge of the taxes within their area of responsibility; to travel to the site of the taxpayer's books to perform their audit duties; to review all records during an audit for potential non-compliance with Florida tax statutes; to gather pertinent tax records to support their findings; and to prepare supporting work papers. Ms. Cartwright went on medical leave in September 2003 and did not return to work. On January 2, 2004, she notified her supervisor that she would be applying for early retirement based on a disability, and requested that her medical leave without pay status be extended until her retirement date was established. On or about March 29, 2004, her request for disability retirement benefits was denied. On April 19, 2004, a recommendation was made to terminate her employment based on Petitioner's inability to perform her duties. On July 13, 2004, Petitioner was advised by certified letter that the Department was proposing to terminate her from the position as Tax Auditor II, effective August 31, 2004. Ms. Cartwright acknowledged receiving the July 13, 2004, letter. The July 13, 2004, letter stated: You began employment with the Department of Revenue effective May 1, 2000, as a Tax Auditor I, and on July 12, 2000, you were promoted to a TA II position. You are currently a TA II, which is a field audit position that requires the auditor to independently travel to the taxpayer's location to audit the company's information for Florida taxes. You have been on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status since September 18, 2003. Further, in a letter dated September 29, 2003, from your physician, Dr. Daniel Goodman, M.D., he indicates that due to your medical condition of narcolepsy, cataplexy and sleep apnea, you are chronically exhausted and always at a risk of falling asleep at any time and have difficulty operating a car at all times. Additionally, Dr. Goodman recommended that you look into getting long-term disability. On January 2, 2004, you provided a letter to your supervisor, Eve Jones, Process Group Manager, requesting that your LWOP status be extended until your retirement benefits are established. However, on March 29, 2004, you were denied disability benefits. The July 13, 2004 letter identified the disciplinary standard upon which the Department relied and the documents considered by the Department in making its decision. It concluded: Your continuing inability to perform your duties has caused not only a concern for your well being, but has also imposed a hardship on the other staff that have had to handle your job duties and responsibilities in addition to their regular duties. Your Program Director and I agree that because of your continuing inability to perform the duties of your position, with no indication of when you might be able to begin performing your normal work duties, dismissal for inability to perform assigned job duties [is] the only appropriate action in your case. No evidence was presented that Ms. Cartwright's termination was based upon her race or gender. The letter contained a notification of Petitioner's right to appeal the action to the Public Employees Relations Commission or to file a grievance pursuant to Section 447.401, Florida Statutes. Ms. Cartwright did not pursue either remedy. Instead she continued to pursue approval of her request for disability retirement, which was successful. On August 30, 2004, the day before her termination would be effective, she faxed to the Department a letter which stated: Last week I received the "Order of Remand," the final document necessary to process my disability retirement effective September 1, 2004. Therefore, after what was an extraordinary amount of time to apply for, and be approved for, disability retirement, I will be terminating employment as a Tax Auditor II effective August 31, 2004. I thank the Department for allowing me to remain on a leave of absence without pay during this process. On August 30, 2005, she filed a complaint against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging racial and gender discrimination. Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was denied training essential to her position; that she was denied a flex schedule; that she was asked to perform clerical and janitorial duties not required of her male counterparts; and that she was not allowed to drive her own car to field audit locations. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Cartwright received formal training in Tallahassee a few months after she was hired, received computer based training and on-the-job training. No credible evidence was received that other similarly situated employees received training denied to Ms. Cartwright. Her claim that she was denied training involved events occurring before she began medical leave without pay, well over a year before she filed her complaint with the Commission. Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was denied a flex time schedule. To the contrary, while there was a delay in approval of flex time during part of her tenure, Ms. Cartwright was approved for flex time schedules on May 2, 2000 (the day after beginning work with the Department) and on August 13, 2002. Ms. Cartwright admitted that the issue regarding flex time was resolved over three years before she filed her complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Cartwright, along with other members of the staff, was asked to perform clerical duties when the office was short- handed. Ms. Cartwright did not identify any person on the staff who was not asked to perform such functions. Likewise, members of the staff were asked to take shifts on a volunteer basis with respect to "coffee duty." Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was asked to clean out the refrigerator, but did not testify when this request was made. As she did not return to work after September 18, 2003, it would have been well over a year before she filed her complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations August 30, 2005. Finally, Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was not allowed to drive her own car to field audits. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Cartwright was never prohibited from driving her own car, but that office policy provided that when more than one auditor went to an audit location, only the senior auditor would be paid for mileage when using a personally owned vehicle. Ms. Cartwright did not identify any other employee who was not a senior auditor who was paid mileage when accompanying a senior auditor in the field. Moreover, the trips for which mileage was not approved occurred during the period covering September through December 2002. These trips occurred well over two years before Ms. Cartwright filed her complaint with the Commission on Human Relations. The issues raised in her complaint, i.e., lack of training, denial of flex schedule, performance of clerical or janitorial duties and not being compensated for driving her own car, are separate incidents and do not constitute a continuing violation tied to her proposed termination. All of the incidents identified in her complaint, including the proposed termination, occurred more than 365 days before Petitioner filed her complaint with the Commission on Human Relations.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioners are liable for sales and use tax, penalty, and interest as assessed by the Department of Revenue (the Department)?
Findings Of Fact Salma is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 2231 Del Prado Boulevard, Cape Coral, Florida, 33990. Gausia is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 11571 Gladiolus Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, 33908. Petitioners are in the business of operating gas stations with convenience stores. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida and is authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. Petitioners were selected for audit because their reported gross sales were less than the total cost of items purchased (inventory) for the audit period. The Department issued Salma and Gausia each a Notice of Intent to Conduct a Limited Scope Audit or Self-Audit, dated April 26, 2013, for sales and use tax, for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2013 (collectively referred to as the Notices). The Notices requested that Petitioners provide the Department: (a) a list of all their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) their total purchases of alcohol and tobacco, by vendor, for the period July 2010 to June 2011; (c) copies of their federal tax returns for the examination period; (d) purchase receipts for all purchases for the last complete calendar month; and (e) daily register (Z tapes) for the last complete calendar month. The Notices gave Petitioners 60 days to gather the requested documents before the audit was to commence. The Notices also requested that Petitioners complete an attached Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet. In response to the Notices, Petitioners requested a 30- day extension of time until July 18, 2013, to provide the requested documents and to designate a Power of Attorney. Petitioners did not provide the Department any books and records for inspection, nor did they complete and return the questionnaire and self analysis worksheets. As a result, the Department's auditor determined the sales tax due based upon the best information available. To calculate an estimated assessment of sales tax, the Department used the purchase data of Petitioners' wholesalers and distributors of alcoholic beverages and tobacco, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011; the 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and in-store sales percentages of alcoholic beverage and tobacco products; and historical audit data. After reviewing the purchase data for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, and for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012, the Department's auditor determined that the data was missing a few vendors. As a result, the Department's auditor estimated the amount of Petitioners' cigarette purchases, based on historical audit data that shows that cigarette sales are generally 4.31 times more than beer sales. The Department's auditor and audit supervisor testified that the estimated gross sales seemed reasonable and consistent with the national averages and the purchase data for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. The Department estimated gross sales (i.e., the retail sale value of the goods sold) by marking up the taxable sales and exempt sales reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners. For example, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Salma purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $148,826.15, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $189,009.21. For July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Gausia purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $132,138.65, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $167,816.09. The Department's markup on the alcoholic beverage and tobacco products is reasonable because the Department's auditor testified that he used a combination of 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and the competitive pricing and information from audits of other convenience stores. The Department determined that the exemption ratio reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners was extremely high for their industry. The Department used an exemption ratio of 15 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry, to calculate Petitioners' estimated taxable sales. A review of Petitioners' sales and use tax returns revealed that they did not apply the tax bracket system to their taxable sales transactions, as required under sections 212.12(9) and (10), Florida Statutes. Instead, Petitioners remitted sales tax on their taxable sales based on their gross receipts at a flat tax rate. The Department's auditor testified that this method of reporting tax is inappropriate and does not accurately reflect the sales activity of the business. The Department calculated the average effective tax rate of 6.0856 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry. To calculate the estimated tax due, the Department multiplied the effective tax rate by the estimated taxable sales and gave Petitioners credit for any tax remitted with their tax returns. The Department issued Salma a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149872. The Department issued Gausia a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149749. The Department assessed Petitioners sales tax on their sales of alcoholic beverages and tobacco. The Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes gave Petitioners 30 days to request a conference with the auditor or audit supervisor, to dispute the proposed changes. Petitioners did not make such a request. The Department issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) to Salma on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $159,282.26; for penalty in the sum of $39,820.57; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $27,772.36. The Department issued a NOPA to Gausia on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $213,754.46; for penalty in the sum of $53,438.62; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $36,921.79. Additional interest accrues at $30.55 per day until the tax is paid. The NOPAs became final assessments on May 5, 2014. After filing a request for an administrative hearing, Petitioners completed the Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet and produced the following documents to the Department: (a) a list of all of their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) a list of vendors for alcohol and tobacco, for the examination period of July 2010 to June 2011; (c) a summary of their taxable sales, for the period February 2010 through December 2012; (d) copies of their federal tax returns, for the tax years 2010 through 2013; (e) copies of its purchase receipts for the months of July 2013; and (f) copies of their daily register (Z-tapes) for the month of July 2013. The Department's auditor testified that aside from being untimely, the records and information provided by Petitioners during these proceedings were not reliable because Petitioners did not provide any source documents that would allow the Department to reconcile the reported figures and confirm the supplied information. In addition, the purchase receipts and Z- tapes were not relevant because they were from outside of the audit period. The Z-tapes are also unreliable because the manager of the convenience store testified at the final hearing that employees purposely and routinely entered taxable sales into the cash registers as tax exempt sales. Petitioners argue that the Department did not use the best information available when estimating the taxes due. Petitioners claim that because their businesses are combination gas station/convenience stores, the national data for standalone convenience stores is inapplicable. However, notably absent from Petitioners' testimony or evidence was any alternative data upon which the Department could have relied for more accurate estimates.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioners' requests for relief and assessing, in full, the Department's assessments of sales tax, penalty, and interest against both Salma and Gausia. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency, charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0120021 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker at 1170 John Anderson Drive, Ormond Beach, Florida 32074. On November 26, 1986, Respondent signed a plea of guilty to the felony offense of willfully aiding or assisting in the preparation and presentation to the Internal Revenue Service of a false or fraudulent corporation federal income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206(2), as charged in Count 7 of an indictment filed against Respondent and others. The indictment count to which Respondent pled guilty read as follows: That on or about January 13, 1983, in Volusia County, Florida in the Middle District of Florida, NORMA F. NEWFIELD, defendant herein, a resident of Ormond Beach, Volusia County, Florida, did willfully aid and assist in, procure, counsel, and advise the preparation and presentation to the Internal Revenue Service of a U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, Form 1120, for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1982 for the corporation Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A., 255 South Yonge Street, Ormond Beach, Florida, which was false and fraudulent as to a material matter, in that the said corporate tax return represented the gross receipts for the corporation Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A., to be $361,366.00 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1982, whereas, the defendant then and there well knew and believed the gross receipts for the corporation Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A., for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1982 were in excess of that heretofore stated; all in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(2). On December 15, 1986, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Respondent was found guilty of the felony offense described above. The Judgment And Probation/Commitment Order issued that date included the following disposition: The court asked whether defendant had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced. Because no sufficient cause to the contrary was shown, or appeared to the court, the court adjudged the defendant guilty as charged and convicted and ordered that the defendant pay a fine to the United States of America in the amount of TWENTY- THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000.00). It Is Further Ordered that imposition of a sentence of imprisonment is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation with the probation office of the Court for a period of THREE (3) YEARS under the standing conditions of probation and the Special Conditions that the defendant perform 250 hours of community service and that the defendant serve FIVE (5) DAYS in a jail-type institution reporting to the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons no later than Noon January 15, 1987. Said institution to be the Seminole County Jail. Following the completion of her 250 hours of community service, Respondent's Probation Officer recommended the Respondent be discharged from probation. By order dated April 21, 1987, the court discharged Respondent from probation. By letter dated May 18, 1987, and received May 20, 1987, counsel wrote to the Florida Real Estate Commission on Respondent's behalf and advised the Commission of Respondent's plea of guilty and of Respondent's conviction. The letter had attached to it copies of the judgment and sentence and the order terminating probation. The letter of May 18, 1987, was the first notification to the Commission by or on behalf of the Respondent regarding her plea of guilty and her felony conviction. The corporation named "Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A.," is an incorporated medical practice of Aron P. Newfield, who is Respondent's husband. The corporation named "Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A.," is not involved in the business of real estate brokerage.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the allegations in Count One of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statues, as alleged in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for the violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for the violation of Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes; and Suspending Respondent's license for a period of three (3) years for the violation of both Section 475.25(1)(f) and Section 475.25(1)(p) DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2571 The following are my rulings on the findings of act proposed by the parties in their respective proposed recommended orders. Findings Proposed by Petitioner The findings of fact in this recommended order contain the substance of all of the findings proposed by Petitioner. Findings Proposed by Respondent Ruling on the findings of fact proposed by Respondent has been complicated by the fact that at pages three through nine of the Respondent's proposed recommended order the proposed findings are intertwined with proposed conclusions of law and legal arguments. I have attempted to glean the proposed facts from the mixture of facts, conclusions, and arguments, and the findings of fact in this recommended order contain the substance of all of the findings of fact proposed by Respondent, except as specifically noted below. Proposed findings regarding Respondents application for restoration of civil rights are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings regarding a disgruntled former employee are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings regarding Respondents character traits for responsibility, honesty, and integrity are rejected in part because they are irrelevant and also in large part because they are not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Most of the testimony about Respondent's character had to do with how generous and kind she was in her personal life rather than how she conducted her business activities. Proposed findings regarding notice to the Commission by Margaret Penoyer are rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James M. Russ, Esquire Tinker Building 18 West Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801-2697 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings, stipulations and oral representations of the parties, the following facts are found: During the years in question, petitioner was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and was duly qualified and authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Petitioner is the parent corporation of a consolidated group of corporations, two of which (including petitioner) had Florida transactions or were otherwise separately subject to the Florida corporate income tax code. None of the other members of the consolidated group were subject to taxation in Florida. For the fiscal and calendar years 1972 through 1974, Petitioner filed federal and Florida income tax returns on behalf of the parent corporation, which included the returns for the consolidated group of corporations -- both the Florida and non- Florida members. Each member of the group consented to such consolidated filing and the component members of the Florida return group were identical to the members of the federal return group. Respondent issued its proposed deficiencies for the 1972 and 1973 tax years, ruling that for a parent corporation to include all of its subsidiary corporations for the purposes of consolidating its taxable income, it must be incorporated in Florida. For the years 1972, 1973 and 1974, respondent's Rule 12C-1.131(1), F.A.C., contained a definition of a "Florida parent company" as the term is used in the second sentence of Florida Statutes 220.131(1). This rule was amended on August 4, 1975, to delete said sentence defining the term "Florida parent company."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: petitioner pay the assessment of $3,786.33 for the year 1972, with interest, as stipulated by petitioner, the proposed assessment for the year 1973 in the amount of $112,281.06 be dismissed and set aside, and the petitioner's method of computing its corporate income tax for the year 1974 be upheld. Respectfully submitted and entered this 21st day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Lewis Hall, Jr. Hall and Hedrick Greater Miami Federal Building 200 Southeast First Street Miami, Florida E. Wilson Crump, II Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Division, Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact The parties have agreed that there are no issues of fact to be determined in this matter, and that the relevant facts are set out in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition which was received in evidence at the hearing as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. This matter involves a determination for Florida corporate income tax purposes of the net income derived by the Petitioner in connection with the purchase, development, and sale of certain property in Dade County, Florida. Petitioner purchased the property prior to January 1, 1972, the date upon which the Florida Income Tax Code became effective. Petitioner expended, through a subsidiary corporation, $369,058 in developing the property. These expenditures also occurred prior to January 1, 1972. For Federal income tax purposes the Petitioner had deducted these expenditures as business expenses during the years that they were incurred. Petitioner sold the property during 1972. Because the Petitioner had deducted the expenditures as business expenses, the expenditures could not properly have been included in the base price of the property for Federal income tax purposes, and the net income for Federal tax purposes was computed by subtracting the original purchase price from the sale price. Since the Florida Income Tax Code was not in effect at the time the expenditures were made, the Petitioner received no Florida tax benefit for the expenditures. In computing the net income for Florida tax purposes derived from the sale, the Petitioner included the expenditures in the base price of the property, and calculated its net income by subtracting the sum of the purchase price of the property and the expenditures from the sale price. The Department, contending that the $369,058 should not have been included in the base price of the property, issued a deficiency assessment which reflected the net income from the sale of property as the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. Petitioner originally contended that it was entitled to add the amount that the property appreciated prior to January 1, 1972 to the base price of the property. Petitioner is no longer contesting the deficiency assessment based upon a disallowance of that addition to the base price of the property. The Department was originally contending that it was entitled to interest at 12 percent per annum calculated retrospectively from the due date of the alleged deficiency. The Department has agreed to abandon its effort to impose that rate of interest. The issue raised in this case is whether the development expenses incurred by the Petitioner and deducted for Federal income tax purposes as business expenses prior to 1972 can be subtracted from Federal taxable income for the purpose of determining taxable income derived from the sale for Florida tax purposes.
The Issue Whether this cause should be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to comply with Section 120.80(14)(b)3., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is contesting an assessment of taxes, pursuant to an audit conducted by Respondent Department of Revenue. The total amount of the assessment was $32,312.24. Following the audit, in a letter to the Department's auditor dated April 17, 2006, Petitioner's counsel stated that taxes "in the amount of $5,744.80 is something [Petitioner] would be obligated to pay under the laws of the State of Florida, and as such, they are willing to do so. They would be willing to pay interest due on this money."1/ This statement constitutes a clear admission that Petitioner owes the stated amount of the tax, $5,744.80, plus interest that accrues daily. Petitioner's Memorandum makes the un-sworn statement that: At the time the parties met to discuss the assessment with the representative of the Department of Revenue, Martha Watkins, they offered to pay $5,744.80 of the taxes but were informed it was part of the $32,312.24, and they could either pay it all or contest it. At all times material hereto the petitioners have stood ready to pay the $5,744.80. On April 17, 2006, we wrote a letter to Martha Watkins making this offer for the second time. On August 17, 2006, we again wrote to the Department of Revenue attaching our letter of April 17, 2006, again making this offer. At no time was a response received to either letter. The August 17, 2006, letter alluded to in Petitioner's Memorandum is not of record and neither a copy of that letter, nor an affidavit of its contents, has been submitted by either party. At no time has Petitioner asserted that any amount of tax money was unequivocally tendered to Respondent. No affidavit to that effect has been filed in this case. The Second Affidavit of Martha Watkins, submitted with the Department of Revenue's timely Memorandum states, in pertinent part: I conducted the audit of C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., from which arose the challenged assessment and this controversy. During the course of the audit, and subsequent communication with C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., regarding the audit and assessment of taxes and interest, C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., made at least one settlement offer, that was unacceptable, and was rejected by the Department as such. At no time did C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., unequivocally tender to me, or unequivocally offer to tender to me, the uncontested tax and applicable interest, and at no time did I refuse to accept any payment of taxes. On September 21, 2006, a Request for Administrative Hearing was filed with the Department of Revenue. On September 28, 2006, the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue entered an Order Dismissing the Petition with Leave to Amend. That Order reads, in pertinent part: On September 21, 2006, the Florida Department of Revenue received a "Request for Administrative Hearing" from Petitioner, C & C Mechanical Contractors. While the document clearly is a request for hearing, the petition does not state what the Petitioner is disputing. A record search shows that at least one Notice of Proposed Assessment was issued by the Department on June 15, 2006 to this Petitioner. It is impossible to determine from the petition whether this proposed assessment is being challenged. However, because this request was sent within the applicable time frame to dispute the Notice of Proposed Assessment, the Department will treat it as such. As required by law, the notice stated that a formal protest for an administrative hearing had to be received in the Office of the General Counsel within sixty days after the assessment became final and had to be in compliance with chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The petition fails to meet the requirements contained in chapter 120, Florida Statutes and Uniform Rule 28- 106.201, Florida Administrative Code, the appropriate rule for use in filing a petition requesting a hearing involving disputed issues of material fact. A copy of the appropriate rule is provided with this order. Specifically, the petition does not contain: (1) a statement of when and how the Petitioner received notice of the agency decision; (2) all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; (3) a concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the Petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; (4) a statement of the specific rules or statutes the Petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action, and (5) a statement of the relief sought by the Petitioner, stating precisely the action the petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action. Because of these deficiencies, Petitioner's documentation must be dismissed. IT IS ORDERED: The petition for hearing filed by Petitioner is DISMISSED. Such dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner to amend the petition to provide the information listed above. . . . On October 11, 2006, the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed with the Department of Revenue. That Amended Petition stated, in pertinent part: 1. The Petitioner received a certified letter dated June 15, 2006, stating taxes were due and owing in the amount of $32,312.24. This amount included $5,774.80 in fabrication cost taxes which the Petitioner does not object too [sic]. The balance of the $32,312.24 was for taxes on items sold to non-taxable entities. The Petitioner would object to these taxes and gives as grounds the following: Items sold to non-taxable entities are not subject to the Florida Tax Code. The department made a determination the items sold to the non-taxable entities were taxable stating the contractor, in this case the Petitioner, was the end user. Florida Tax Code states in part ". . . a determination whether a particular transaction is properly characterized as an exempt sale to a government entity or a taxable sale to a contractor shall be based on the substance of the transaction rather than the form in which the transaction is cast." The department "shall adopt rules that give special consideration to factors that govern the status of the tangible personal property before its affixation to real property." The Department of Revenue has adopted a rule which is in violation of the incident [sic] of legislature and contrary to Florida Statute 212.08.2/ (Emphasis supplied). The Amended Petition constitutes a clear admission that the $5,744.80 portion of the taxes due under the audit were both uncontested and owed, as of October 11, 2006. The first Affidavit of Martha Watkins, filed November 28, 2006, in support of the pending Motion to Dismiss, states, in pertinent part: I am a [sic] sui juris and otherwise competent to testify in this matter. I am employed by the Florida Department of Revenue in the position of Tax Auditor III. I am familiar with the accounts, accounting methods, and maintenance of records at the Florida Department of Revenue for sales tax, interest, and penalties. I am authorized by the Department of Revenue to make affidavit regarding the payment status of sales taxes, interest and penalties relative to registered Florida dealers. I have reviewed, and have personal knowledge of the accounts of the Florida Department of Revenue regarding tax payment of C&C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida corporation that has in the past been issued a Certificate of Registration by the Department of Revenue. According to the records of the Department of Revenue, as of November 27, 2006, C&C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., has not paid any sums to the Department of Revenue against the assessed outstanding balance of sales tax, interest or penalties, since prior to April 16, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Revenue enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2007.
The Issue Is the Respondent's assessment for corporate income tax and interest for the tax years ending 12/31/78, 12/31/79, and 12/31/80 appropriate, and may it be properly imposed upon Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact The instant dispute between the parties arose out of how the substantial business interests of Petitioner Murray Kramer Corp. are to be defined and by what accounting method its corporate income tax assessments are to be made. Milton P. Weiss, C.P.A., is Petitioner's accountant and qualified representative for purposes of this proceeding. He is neither an internal bookkeeper for the corporation nor a corporate officer thereof. At all times material, Petitioner was conducting business, deriving income, or existing within the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 220, F.S. Petitioner invests primarily through partnerships. Among Petitioner's holdings and investments is ownership of an orange grove in the State of Florida from which it derived income by way of the sales of citrus fruit grown in Florida during the taxable years at issue: 1978, 1979, and 1980. The orange grove constitutes real and tangible property in Florida for purposes of Florida's corporate income tax. Petitioner has consistently filed Florida corporate income tax returns on a "separate accounting" basis since the inception of Florida's Corporate Income Tax Law on January 1, 1972. Petitioner used this method for the years at issue: 1978, 1979, and 1980. It did so without petitioning the Respondent Department of Revenue for permission at or before the filing of the returns to use the "separate accounting" method to determine the Florida tax base. Accordingly, Petitioner did not receive prior written permission from the Department to use the "separate accounting" method for those years, and the Department did not require that the Petitioner use the "separate accounting" method in those years. Nonetheless, Petitioner asserts that its pattern of using the "separate accounting" method for six years put the Department on sufficient notice that the corporate taxpayer would continue to use that method indefinitely and further asserts that it was therefore entitled to use such a "separate accounting" method on the basis of its prior consistent usage. Petitioner's Florida corporate returns declare investment income from dividends, interest, gains from securities, partnership income, and income from its orange grove located in Florida. In each of the disputed tax years, Petitioner entered its federal taxable income on Line 1 of the Florida Corporation Income Tax Return, FORM F-1120. This amount is not at issue and is accepted as a "given" by both parties. However, in each of the disputed tax years, Petitioner did not complete the apportionment schedule on Page 3 of the respective returns. Instead of using the apportionment method, Petitioner computed what it characterized as "Florida Profit" or "Florida Income" on a schedule it attached, based totally on the profits it derived from the Florida orange grove and then inserted that amount on Line 6, Florida Portion of Adjusted Federal Income, of the "Computation of Florida Tax Liability" on the Florida return. This entry did not relate computationally to the amount of federal taxable income reported federally on Line 1. All gross receipts from the sale of citrus fruit by Petitioner were derived from sales made to Zellwood Fruit Distributors. This dollar amount is also undisputed. Petitioner received payment from its Florida orange grove operation in the form of checks drawn by Zellwood. Approximately June 20, 1983, Respondent Department of Revenue made an initial audit of Petitioner's books and records for the taxable years in question. Respondent's auditor assigned at that time had full and free access to Petitioner's books and records. He and his supervisor memorialized their view that the "separate accounting" method employed by Petitioner was proper, but this judgment call (by the auditor on June 29, 1983 and by his supervisor on July 1, 1983) was in the nature of free-form agency action and was neither accepted nor formalized by their superiors within the agency who ultimately determined that the Petitioner should have employed the "apportionment" method and that the burden was upon the Petitioner even under the apportionment method to establish that one hundred percent of its income was not derived in Florida. The Respondent Department therefore determined the tax owed by Petitioner upon the basis of 100% of Petitioner's income as opposed to the yearly percentages that Petitioner had unilaterally assigned to its orange grove, and issued its Revised Notice of Intent to Make Corporate Income Tax Audit Changes on November 7, 1983. Florida's apportionment formula is a three-factor function which takes selected business activities of the taxpayer and computes the portion of that activity attributable to Florida, divided by that activity everywhere. A composite of the subtotal of those three measures (payroll, sales, and property) of business activity are used to compute Florida's share of the "everywhere" base that would be available under the adjusted federal taxable income base. See, Section 214.71(1), F.S. The Department calculated the tax using the three statutorily recognized apportionment factors of payroll, sales, and property. Concerning the first apportionment factor, payroll, Petitioner had federally reported no amount of payroll, and therefore this factor was determined by the Department to be zero, and pursuant to Section 220.15, F.S., the payroll factor was eliminated and the other two factors were used exclusively. Concerning the sales factor, all gross receipts of the orange grove were considered to be derived within the State of Florida, and all gross income attributable to intangible personal property was excluded from the sales factor, pursuant to Section 220.15(1), F.S. Concerning the property factor, the Department determined that all real and tangible personal property was within the State of Florida. The situs of the intangible property was not established by the taxpayer. Therefore, because Section 214.71, F.S. limits the construction of the property factor to include only "real and tangible personal property," it was thus determined to exclude intangible property. The Respondent Department of Revenue issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment on November 16, 1983, showing a balance of $10,596.00 ($7308.00 tax, $275.00 penalty, and $3,013.00 interest computed through October 31, 1983, plus notice of daily interest of $2.40 per day from November 1, 1983 until paid.) Petitioner timely availed itself of informal protest procedures, and the Department issued its Notice of Decision on March 15, 1985. By its June 21, 1988 Notice of Reconsideration, the Department concluded its informal proceedings and denied Petitioner's assertion of the right to use a "separate accounting" method and further denied Petitioner's challenge to the Department's assessment by the "apportionment" method, which in this instance had not made any apportionment for "outside Florida" activities. The situs of intangible personal property was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Petitioner at formal hearing. The Petitioner also did not establish that it owns real or tangible personal property outside Florida. Zellwood Fruit Distributors provided Petitioner Murray Kramer with letters attesting that, based upon information received from Winter Gardens Citrus Products Cooperative, Winter Gardens' sales percentages in the State of Florida were as follows: 1979 1980 18.60% 21.07% Zellwood provided no such figures to Petitioner for the year 1978. Petitioner contends, on the basis of the after the fact Zellwood letters, that Zellwood was a member of Winter Gardens, a cooperative, and Murray Kramer was an associate grower of Zellwood. At formal hearing, no one from Zellwood or Winter Gardens testified; no contract between Petitioner Murray Kramer and either Zellwood or Winter Gardens was introduced to prove agency; no bills of lading, sales slips, corporate documents, or other connective link among the three entities was offered in evidence; nor was any primary, direct, non-hearsay evidence of sales amounts or situs of Winter Gardens' sales offered by Petitioner. Milton Weiss, Petitioner's accountant, asserted that if a straight "apportionment" (not "separate accounting") calculation had been made for the income derived in Florida by Petitioner, percentages would be: 1978 1979 1980 24.03% 15.31% 15.01% These percentages rely in part on what are clearly the out-of-court statements of Zellwood's correspondent, relaying further out-of-court statements from Winter Gardens Citrus. (See the immediately preceding Finding of Fact). Neither of these out-of-court hearsay statements is such as may be used to supplement or explain direct evidence, since no direct, primary source evidence of these sales or income has been presented before the undersigned in this de novo proceeding. See, Section 120.58(1), F.S. Petitioner has not directly paid wages during the tax years at issue. Petitioner has not produced any federal partnership tax returns nor other persuasive proof to account for the return on its investments through partnership channels. During the tax years at issue, Petitioner was not a member of a Florida cooperative, as that term, "cooperative," is used in Section 214.71(3)(a)2, F.S. (See Finding of Fact 15). Petitioner was unable, by evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, to establish that all amounts other than the percentages of gross income Petitioner had assigned by either of the alternative accounting methods was generated outside of the State of Florida. In so finding, the undersigned specifically rejects Petitioner's assertion that the initial audit report of June 1983 could, by itself alone, legally or factually establish that only the orange grove income was Florida income, that Petitioner's Florida income was solely from the orange grove, that the interest, dividends, and gains on securities sales were not derived in Florida, that the Petitioner taxpayer received rent income from partnerships, that the partnership real estate which gave rise to the rent income was 100% outside Florida, or that the Respondent's initial audit "verified" the figures needed to compute the sales factor, the figures for the property factor, and the figures for the payroll factor of the "apportionment" method for the following reasons: In addition to the first auditor's report being free-form agency action which was ultimately rejected by the agency, and in addition to the failure of either the first auditor or his supervisor to testify in the instant Section 120.57(1) de novo proceeding as to the accuracy of the underlying primary documentation which Petitioner Murray Kramer claimed the first auditor had apparently reviewed, Petitioner did not offer in evidence at formal hearing any such direct evidence documentation which it claimed had been reviewed by the auditors. Further, Respondent's successive auditor, Mr. Siska, testified that it is auditor practice to only examine those books and records individual auditors believe to be necessary to complete the audit. This discretionary element eliminates any guarantee of what the initial auditor relied upon. For the same reasons, Petitioner's assertion that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit of its books and records for the year 1979 "verifies" that the Petitioner's books and records accurately reflect the transactions that took place, is rejected. Petitioner Murray Kramer had admitted a letter (P-10) notifying the corporation that the IRS' "examination of ... tax returns for the above periods shows no change as required in the tax reported. The returns are accepted as filed." The tax period indicated on this exhibit is "7912", which is not helpful, and even if it means, as Mr. Weiss testified, that the 1979 federal tax return which is part of the Florida Corporate Tax Return is accurate under federal law, this IRS letter alone does not verify all the underlying documentation for all three years in question. Also, specifically with regard to investments made through other entities, Mr. Weiss' testimony suggests that the wages paid and partnership returns of these other entities never were in the possession of, nor accessible by, this Petitioner. Petitioner's reliance on its federal returns is apparently based, in part, at least, upon its assertion that it is a "financial institution" as defined in Sections 214.71(3)(b) and 220.15(2), F.S., but the presentation quality of evidence in this case does not permit of such a finding, either. Petitioner has paid no portion of the assessed taxes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order which dismisses the Petition and affirms the assessment. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 26th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4100 The following constitute rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 6. Accepted. 2, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19. Rejected for the reasons set out in the Recommended Order. 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Order. With regard to item 8, specifically, this determination is non-binding in the de novo proceeding. 4. Rejected upon the citation given as not proved or applicable as stated. 13. Accepted in part and rejected in part as not proved or applicable as stated. See Conclusions of Law 11-12. 15, 18. Rejected as out of context and misleading upon the record as a whole, and as not dispositive of any material issue, and as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Respondent's PFOF: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18. Accepted. 4, 5. Accepted in part; what is not adopted is subordinate or unnecessary to the facts as found. 17. Accepted, but by itself is not dispositive of any material issue at bar, for the reasons set out in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Milton P. Weiss, C.P.A. 686 Hampstead Avenue West Hampstead, New York 11552 Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Tax Section Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Sharon A. Zahner, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Revenue Room 204, Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 William D. Townsend, Esquire General Counsel 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Katie D. Tucker, Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Milton P. Weiss, C.P.A. 3091 North Course Drive Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue should assess Heftler Construction Company ("Taxpayer") for Florida corporate income taxes on a claim that: Taxpayer realized a gain under the Florida Income Tax Code when an asset acquired in 1971 (on liquidation of a joint venture) was sold in 1975 in satisfaction of an outstanding debt; and Taxpayer's losses created by the subtraction of foreign source income cannot operate to create or increase the Florida portion of the net operating loss carryover.
Findings Of Fact Formation and Liquidation of Joint Venture; Subsequent Sale of Asset Taxpayer is a New Jersey corporation, authorized to transact business in Florida. Heftler Realty Company ("Realty") is a Florida corporation, and is a subsidiary of Taxpayer. Taxpayer, for all years material to these proceedings, filed consolidated income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service of the United States ("IRS") . Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"), Taxpayer included in the income and expenses of its consolidated income tax returns the income and expenses of its operations in Puerto Rico. Taxpayer, for all years material to these proceedings, timely filed with the Department consolidated income tax returns. In 1969, Realty formed a joint venture with a company known as GACL, Inc., for the purpose of developing real property Realty, in accordance with its Joint Venture Agreement with GACL, Inc., prior to 1971, contributed to the joint venture the following assets with the following cost basis to Taxpayer on the date of contribution: ASSET DATE CONTRIBUTED TO JOINT VENTURE COST BASIS TO TAXPAYER ON DATE CONTRIBUTED Cash 3-5-69 $250,000 Land 3-5-69 2,000,000 In 1971, prior to the effective date of the Florida Income Tax Code ("Florida Code"), Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, the joint venture between Realty and GACL, Inc., was liquidated effective as of January 1, 1971. Pursuant to the plan of liquidation, Realty received, in liquidation of the joint venture, the assets as described in the attached Appendix. These assets had a then cost basis to the joint venture as described in the Appendix. The assets acquired by Realty in liquidation of the joint venture were subject to the debts described in the Appendix. Pursuant to the plan of liquidation of the joint venture, Realty agreed to acquire the assets and assume the attendant debts (itemized in the Appendix) as of January 1, 1971. At the time of the liquidation of the joint venture, Realty had a cost basis for its interest in the joint venture of a negative $285,749. (Realty had a negative basis in the assets because it sustained joint venture losses in excess of its contributions to the joint venture.) The net gain to Realty as' reported upon the federal income tax return of Taxpayer, after adjustment for depreciation, as a result of the liquidation was $1,238,37l. In 1971, Realty reduced its tax basis in the assets acquired in the liquidation. This adjustment (reduction) in the tax basis of the assets acquired by Taxpayer occurred prior to the effective date of the Florida Code. An asset acquired by Realty in 1971, pursuant to the plan of liquidation of the joint venture, was conveyed by Realty in 1975 to a creditor of Realty in satisfaction of debt. After adjusting the tax basis of the asset, a comparison of its book basis (to the joint venture) with the tax basis to Taxpayer after liquidation, reflects the following: Adjusted Basis as of Jan. 1, Tax Basis to Tax- Book Basis to payer or After Joint Venture Liquidation Difference 1971 $4,466,764 $3,055,722 $1,411,042 Accumulated Depreciation to Date of Sale (587,212) (414,541) (172,671) Adjusted Basis $3,879,552 $2,641,181 $1,238,371 For purposes of its Federal Income Tax, Taxpayer reported the transaction as a sale and computed the gain thereon as follows: $3,951,708 Expense of Sale $2,713,337 3. Total Gain $1,238,371 Gross Sale Price Cost or Other Basis and (The difference between the gross sales price and the adjusted basis referred to in paragraph 13 of $72,156 is an increase to the price due to escrow funds deposited with a mortgagee and assigned to the purchaser of the asset by Realty without Realty receiving reimbursement.) In computing the Florida income tax, pursuant to the Florida Code, for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1976, Taxpayer took as a subtraction an adjustment on line 8, Schedule II, page 2 of its income tax return. The subtraction was in the amount of the capital gain received upon the sale of the asset received in liquidation in the amount of $1,238,371. Taxpayer subtracted the gain, contending that it was realized prior to the effective date of the Florida Code. When acquired, the asset received in liquidation had a cost basis to the joint venture Of approximately $4,500,000. When the asset was distributed to Taxpayer, after the reduction by Taxpayer to the tax basis referred to in paragraph 11, the basis to Taxpayer of the asset was approximately $3,000,000. The tax basis in the amount of $3,000,000 was evidenced by the debts assumed by Taxpayer upon the liquidation; such assumption of debt is referred to in paragraph 7. Department contends that the gain on the sale of the asset acquired in liquidation was both realized and recognized in 1975 when the property was sold in satisfaction of a debt; it has issued a proposed assessment on that basis. Taxpayer contends that the gain was realized by Taxpayer for federal income tax purposes prior to the effective date of the Florida Code and that only the recognition of the gain occurred after the effective date of the Florida Code. II. 1975 Loss Created by Subtraction of Foreign Source Income; Attempt to Carryover Loss to Subsequent Years Taxpayer, in addition to the adjustment referred to above, in reporting income for its fiscal years ending July 31, 1976, July 31, 1977, and July 31, 1978, deducted a net operating loss carry-forward which included an item of $335,037 from its 1975 return (fiscal year ending July 31, 1976) and an item of $916,030 for fiscal year ending July 31, 1978, represented by a subtraction resulting from income earned in Puerto Rico. The subtraction resulted in losses during each of such years, which losses were carried forward by Taxpayer to the next ensuing year. Department contends that the losses created by the subtraction of foreign source income cannot be carried over to subsequent years to determine income and has issued a proposed assessment on that basis. Taxpayer contends that it is not the intent of the Florida Legislature to tax income derived from sources outside the United States and that the effect of a denial of the subtraction will result in the taxation, by Florida, of foreign source income received by Taxpayer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department's proposed assessment of Taxpayer for corporate income tax deficiencies be issued. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 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 21st day of January, 1982.
