The Issue The issue in this case is whether consumer certificates of exemption previously issued by the Department of Revenue to Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, S.A., should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Iberia is a foreign air carrier owned and controlled by the government of Spain. Iberia is an agency or instrumentality of the government of Spain. Iberia is not an agency or instrumentality of the United States Government, nor is it an agency or instrumentality of any of the states of the United States or of any county, municipality, or political subdivision of any such state. Iberia operates flights to and from several states of the United States, including Florida. Iberia purchases items for use within Florida. The Department of Revenue is the agency of the State of Florida which is authorized to administer the collection of taxes and the issuance of consumer certificates of exemption pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The two consumer certificates of exemption at issue in this proceeding were issued to Iberia by the Department on September 21, 1990. Both have an expiration date of September 21, 1995. 5/ One of the subject certificates indicates that Iberia is exempt as a "Federal" organization. The other indicates that Iberia is exempt as a "Government" organization. The Department has continuously treated Iberia as an exempt organization since at least September 3, 1975, when the Department issued Iberia's first consumer certificate of exemption. That certificate indicated that Iberia was considered a "Federal" organization. Iberia has never received any express representations from the Department as to its future entitlement to a consumer certificate of exemption. All of the consumer certificates of exemption issued to Iberia have been issued as a result of some form of mistake or misunderstanding by functionaries of the Department, because Iberia has never been eligible for a consumer certificate of exemption under the provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. 6/ No other foreign airline or foreign air carrier currently holds a consumer certificate of exemption issued by the Department.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a Final Order in this case revoking each of the consumer certificates of exemption previously issued to Iberia. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1996.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business and domicile in Texas, has an obligation to collect and remit Florida sales taxes on sales it made to a Massachusetts-domiciled corporation, in view of the facts found below.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a Delaware Corporation whose principal place of business is in Austin, Texas. The Petitioner designs, develops, and markets portable computer equipment, chiefly portable "tablet" personal computers with related "peripherals," which it sells and delivers in multiple states, including Florida. It sells these products to "re-sellers" and distributors, as well as to "end users." The Petitioner, by the Department's admission in Exhibit "A" (audit) does not maintain a physical presence in the State of Florida. It does employ one sales person for business in Florida, but maintains no warehouse or other facilities, vehicles nor other indicia of physical locations or operation in the state of Florida. The Petitioner is registered as a "dealer" with the State of Florida, Department of Revenue under the Florida Sales and Use Tax Law. The Petitioner does engage in some sales to Florida "end customers" or to re-sale purchasers in Florida. These transactions, however, are not at issue in this case. The dispute solely relates to transactions between the Petitioner and Advantec Computer System, Inc., of Marlboro, Massachusetts. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the regulation, control, administration, and enforcement of the sales and use tax laws of the State of Florida embodied in Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and as implemented by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 12A-1. The Respondent conducted an audit of the books and records of the Petitioner, resulting in this proceeding, for the audit period April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006. That audit was conducted by Xena Francis, and revealed, according to the Department's position, a purported sales tax payment deficiency on the part of the Petitioner in the above-referenced amounts. The Department, upon completion of the audit, issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, thus advising the Petitioner of the amount of the tax penalty and interest it was assessing as a result of the audit. The transactions which the Department maintained were questionable, in terms of taxes not being paid with regard thereto, were those where the Petitioner sold computer products to entities who did not produce to the Petitioner a certificate of exemption from collection of sales tax by Florida on that transaction, and where the product was shipped by the Petitioner into Florida by common carrier. The Department essentially takes the position that, since the Petitioner has a state sales and use tax "dealer certificate," that it is responsible to prove any transactions as being exempt from the relevant taxing provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and the above rule chapter. The Department apparently presumes as a part of this position that the fact that the product in question was shipped to ultimate users in Florida by common carrier from the Petitioner's place of business outside the state that such were Florida sales tax transactions. It thus contends that the burden is on the Petitioner to prove that they are exempt from such tax and collection. After it was advised of the audit findings and the basis for the assessment, the Petitioner provided to the Department certain exemption certificates for a number of the entities and transactions for which shipment had not been made into Florida. The Department accepted these and the assessment was adjusted downward to reflect the exempt status of those transactions, pursuant to the further information provided the Department by the Petitioner. The other disputed transactions for which no exemption certificate was provided by the Petitioner, were deemed by the auditor to be taxable. In essence, the auditor took the position, as does the Department, that every person making sales into the State of Florida is subject to sales and use tax unless specifically exempt and that it is incumbent upon the selling dealer (which it maintains is the Petitioner) to establish the exempt status of the transaction, at the time of sale, with a supporting re-sale certificate or some documentation to support the transactions, exempt status.1/ The sales which are the subject of this dispute are exclusively those between the Petitioner and Advantec Computer Systems, Inc. Advantec is a Massachusetts Incorporated and domiciled corporation. It apparently does not possess a Florida "re-sale certificate" or "dealer certificate." The Petitioner sold various computers and related products, as shown by the invoices in evidence, to Advantec. The invoices and the testimony adduced by the Petitioner established that those sales were between the Petitioner and Advantec, the Massachusetts corporation. Advantec, in turn, sold the products or some of them to Florida customers. Those customers did not pay the Petitioner for the sales, but paid Advantec. Advantec directed that delivery from the Petitioner be made not to Advantec itself, but to its Florida-end customer via common carrier from the Petitioner's out-of-state location or from its overseas supplier. In any event, delivery was made from outside Florida to the Florida Advantec customers by common carrier. The Petitioner billed no Florida customer and had no relationship with any Florida customer of Advantec. Instead it invoiced and billed Advantec for the price of the products involved on a "net 30-day" basis. Advantec would then pay the Petitioner for the amount invoiced by the Petitioner to Advantec. As to the Advantec sales at issue, there was no nexus, substantial or otherwise, between the Petitioner and Advantec's customers in Florida, except that the product was "drop shipped" from the Petitioner's relevant location out of the State of Florida to the Florida customer by common carrier, not by any vehicle owned, leased, or operated by any person or entity affiliated with the Petitioner. In fact, the deliveries in question were made by Federal Express as a drop shipment. Advantec's principal business activity is the re-sale and distribution of computers and related products. It has no presence in Florida and is not a registered dealer in Florida. When the Petitioner made the sales to Advantec Computer Systems, as shown by the invoices and testimony in evidence, it billed Advantec for the sales and did not collect sales tax. While the Petitioner has in its possession Advantec's Massachusetts-issued tax-exempt certificate, the Petitioner does not have a Florida tax-exempt certificate on-file for Advantec, because Advantec is not registered in Florida, and the sale by the Petitioner to Advantec is a Massachusetts sale with no Florida nexus. The Petitioner offered three Technical Assistance Advisements (TAA) into evidence, which it obtained from the Department in support of the fact that the transactions in question are not taxable. (See Exhibits 2, 3, 4 in evidence.) These exhibits were admitted on a limited basis over the Department's objection as being possibly material to a determination as to the weight and credibility of the Department's evidence in this case, but not as being legally binding or constituting legal precedent, which last quality is precluded by Section 213.22(1), Florida Statutes (2006). Additionally, the Petitioner offered and had admitted Petitioner's Exhibit 7, which was an e-mail received from a representative of the Department, in response to an inquiry by the Petitioner. This was admitted over hearsay objection as a party statement offered by the opposing party.2/ In that exchange between the Petitioner and the Department, the Petitioner, as shown by testimony and the exhibit, related the facts involved in the sales to Advantec. The Department's response indicated that, if indeed, the buyer and seller were both located outside the State of Florida and the goods when purchased were outside the State of Florida, then the sale is not a Florida sale, between the out-of-state buyer and the out- of-state seller (the Petitioner). If the goods were then delivered by common carrier to the out-of-state buyer's ultimate customers in Florida, from the Petitioner's out-of-state location, then the transaction between the Petitioner and the out-of-state buyer is not subject to the Florida sales tax law and, in essence, is non-jurisdictional, not as a "Florida nexus sale." In summary, the Petitioner sold the goods in question to Advantec and invoiced Advantec at its Massachusetts domicile and address on "net 30-day" term. No Florida customer, person, or entity was billed for the sales in question, nor was any payment collected from any individual or business entity located in the State of Florida. Once the sale was consummated between the Petitioner and Advantec, the Petitioner merely "dropped shipped," by common carrier, the goods purchased by Advantec to Advantec's ultimate customer located in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Revenue, vacating and dismissing the assessment of the subject sales tax and interest to the Petitioner, Motion Computing, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of December, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 1984, the subject vessel, a 1969 sixty-five foot Hargrave Halmatic motor yacht, was purchased by Nelson Gross as President and principal of the corporation, Binghamton Too, Inc., for $457,500 in Houston Texas. It was financed through a Connecticut bank. The closing was held in Mr. Gross' New Jersey office. No sales or use tax has been paid on the yacht in Florida or in any other state. Mr. Gross' initial intent was to operate his new purchase as a commercial charter boat in conjunction with the "Binghamton," a ferryboat permanently moored and operating in Edgewater, New Jersey, as a floating restaurant. To get the new motor yacht there, Mr. Gross directed that it be brought to New Jersey around the Florida coast under its own power. The motor yacht reached Florida on February 17, 1984, but en route from Texas an unexpected vibration had arisen which required emergency repairs. These repairs were commissioned at Bradford Marine, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where the motor yacht remained, except for sea trials in connection with the vibration problem, until the first week in April, 1984. A cracked strut was diagnosed as the cause of the vibration problem. Repair costs of this emergency problem totalled $5,975. The balance of charges incurred at Bradford Marine, Ft. Lauderdale, was $21,729, including dockage. Many more of the repairs catalogued by Respondent's Exhibit 5, the Bradford Marine records for this period, were clearly voluntary, discretionary, and cosmetic in nature. The majority were of a non-emergency nature. The vessel, by then relettered "Binghamton Too," left Florida waters approximately April 20, 1984. "Binghamton Too" next spent approximately three weeks at Thunderbolt Marine Industries in Georgia at an approximate cost of $12,000. There, a strap was fabricated to hold the strut and the yacht proceeded on to New Jersey. The "Binghamton Too" began its charter business as part of the "Binghamton" operation in Edgewater, New Jersey on May 5, 1984. Seventy-five to eighty charters were accomplished between May, 1984 and October, 1984 under New Jersey state and local chartering, transit liquor, and environmental licenses and under U.S. Corps of Engineers permits. "Binghamton Too" returned to Florida waters sometime on or before October 25, 1984, when it was sighted at the Indian River Causeway Bridge. On October 26, 1984, it was sighted at Flagler Bridge in West Palm Beach. Thereafter, it went on to the Lantana Boat Works Marina, Lantana, Florida, for repairs. Lantana is the location of the yacht's original builder, whose equipment and expertise were preferable to that of other boatyards for certain strut repairs due to the peculiar nature of this type of yacht. After those repairs, the yacht was anchored in Palm Beach from January 1985 to April 1985. Although Mr. Gross testified that the strut repairs of necessity had to be done in the Lantana boatyard, his view is not necessarily conclusive of this issue because he admitted "Binghamton Too" was the first yacht he had ever purchased, because he was vague about equating desirability and necessity without any supporting direct expert testimony, and because of the facts found infra. The Lantana repair records from October 29 to December 31, 1984 show $42,521.82 in repairs, of which only $2,500 pertain to fabrication of a strut. Again, the majority of repairs was to refurbish and paint the vessel. Mr. Gross spent approximately October 1984 to April 1985, October 1985 to April 1986, and October 1986 to April 1987 in his father's home in West Palm Beach, Florida. By his own testimony, he confirmed that he established the "technical" office for his "Binghamton Too" business there. He applied, in early December 1984, for a Florida sales tax registration to operate a charter business, representing Palm Beach as his place of business. The account was established January 1, 1985 with the account number of 60-22-080051-61. The captain and mate of the "Binghamton Too" also wintered in Florida each of these years. On December 6, 1984, Mr. Gross wrote the State of New Jersey's Division of Taxation that the yacht's "principal location and headquarters are in West Palm Beach, Florida where it maintains an office and full-time employees," thus successfully arguing that the "Binghamton Too" should be exempt from New Jersey's registration requirements for any vessel residing in that state in excess of 180 days. This correspondence was in connection with a tax problem of the mother ship "Binghamton," still moored in New Jersey. Mr. Gross further represented that Florida was "Binghamton Too's" primary location with trips to the Bahamas." For most of the period from late December, 1984 to early April, 1985, the yacht was in Palm Harbor Marina, West Palm Beach, Florida, the first time not in repairs, and clearly could have returned to New Jersey under its own power had Mr. Gross chosen to do so. From January 24 to March 26, 1985, the boat was in operation, as sighted at the Pompano Beach and Fort Lauderdale bridges. From April 1985 until October of 1985, the yacht was operated as part of Petitioner's commercial charter operation in New Jersey, which included over 100 charters during this time period. Nonetheless, on June 10, 1985, Mr. Gross purchased a boat slip at Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo, Florida. This slip was later sold. Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact 6-12, which clearly establish a pattern of wintering the yacht in Florida waters, it is inferred that, despite Mr. Gross' testimony that it was "necessary" to have "Binghamton Too's" strut repaired in late 1984 by the original Florida manufacturer of the yacht, its presence in Florida from October 1984 until April, 1985 was primarily and substantially due to the preference of Mr. Gross, Petitioner's President, and not due to necessity or emergency. In October of 1985, the yacht returned to Florida where it remained until April of 1986. During this time, the boat underwent further repairs, including the complete repainting of the hull, the need for which Mr. Gross attributed to the old paint being cracked and shaken off by the vibration of the yacht. From April 1986 until October of 1986, the yacht was operated as part of Petitioner's commercial charter operation in New Jersey, which included over 100 charters during this time period. The yacht returned to Florida in October, 1986, and again remained in Florida until early April, 1987, when it left for New Jersey. In late October 1987, the yacht returned to Florida where it was traded in as part of the consideration for a larger yacht in November of 1987. The closing date was December 30, 1987. The cash equivalent received by Petitioner as credit on the trade-in was $100,000. In all, Petitioner asserts that over $200,000 was spent by the corporation on the "Binghamton Too" before it was traded. Shortly after buying the "Binghamton Too", Petitioner had begun trying to sell it for the highest price obtainable. These sales efforts included large ads in national yachting publications and listings with active yacht brokers. The highest outright offer received by Petitioner was $75,000. However, this was Mr. Gross' first sales effort of this kind, and his opinion testimony that the "Binghamton Too" was not bought from the Petitioner outright and at a good price because of latent defects and cost of repair is neither credible nor persuasive since his opinion does not possess the reliability of an expert in assessing whether it was the condition of the yacht, its unusual "Halmatic" type, or some other factor which made the "Binghamton Too" undesirable to potential purchasers. The Florida Department of Revenue issued a Notice of Delinquent Tax January 30, 1987, of five-percent use tax upon the purchase price plus 25 percent penalty. Interest was figured at 12 percent per annum. Petitioner timely protested. The agency conceded that the purchase price on the original notice was mistakenly listed at $475,000, that the assessment appropriately should have been on $457,500 (see Finding of Fact No. 1) and that the State presently claims only the tax amount of 5% of Petitioner's initial $457,500 purchase price at $22,875, the 25 percent penalty at $5,719, and interest on the tax from February 18, 1984, to June 18, 1989 at $14,650. (Interest accrues at $7.52 daily.) The total assessment through June 18, 1989 is $43,234.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order affirming the assessment of $22,875, with 25% penalty and interest at $7.52 per day from February 18, 1984 until paid. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon consideration of Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes the following rulings are made upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 2,3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22: Accepted except to the degree not proven. 4: Rejected as stated because not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. 6, 12: Rejected in part as not proven, in part as subordinate and unnecessary, and in part as to the conclusion-if law as "latent." 7, 8, 9: Accepted except as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 16: Accepted that Mr. Gross testified to this amount, however, the evidence does not support the amount precisely nor that it all went to "repairs." 20: Accepted as modified to better express the record as a whole. Respondent's PFOF: 1: Accepted, but as a Conclusion of Law. 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: Accepted. 5: Accepted in substance; what is not adopted is either mere recitation/characterization of testimony, is cumulative, or is subordinate to the facts as found. 6: Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 7: Sentence 1 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as mere legal argument or subordinate to the facts as found. 8, 11: Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole. Mr. Gross testified to a May 5, 1984 date for No. 8. 18: Except for mere legal argument, accepted. 24: Accepted upon the terms set forth in the Recommended Order. 25: Except as subordinate and unnecessary, accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gene D. Brown, Esquire 3836 Killearn Court Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William D. Moore, General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Katie D. Tucker Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Recommendation It is, therefore, recommended that the petition be dismissed for lack of standing on the part of the Petitioner to bring such action. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Trace H. Bolosky, Esquire Carroll, McPeak, Bolesky & Schryver 1169 Eighth Street South Naples, Florida 33940 George L. Varnadoe, Esquire Post Office Box 17907 Naples, Florida 33941 Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is engaged in the cattle business and sells its cattle to buyers from Florida and from outside Florida. All cattle are sold f.o.b. Clewiston and transportation to destination is paid for by the purchaser. It is the treatment of the sales as instate sales of cattle sold and transported to other states by contract carrier that is the issue in these proceedings. Respondent contends that these sales are instate sales but Petitioner contends that these sales are out-of-state sales for the purpose of computing the income derived from Florida operations pursuant to the provisions of Sections 214.71, 214.72 aud 214.73, Florida Statutes. Had the cattle been picked up by a common carrier for shipment outside Florida, Respondent could have held the sale to be an out-of-state sale for the purpose of computing the Petitioner's income tax. Because the cattle were picked up by contract carrier, Respondent determined the sale to be instate and directed its auditors to so conclude on all audits. This directive was determined to be a rule in case No. 78-1891R and invalid because not promulgated pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 210, Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is liable for sales tax, interest, and penalties as alleged by the Department of Revenue (Department).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Petitioner is a Florida corporation formed in October 2004. The principal office and mailing address of the Petitioner is 518 North Tampa Street, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33602. The directors of the corporation are Brenda Dohring and Robert Hicks (husband and wife), and Joshua Dohring (their son). Brenda Dohring and Robert Hicks are residents of Tampa, Florida, and registered voters in Hillsborough County. Brenda Dohring and Robert Hicks hold Florida driver's licenses. Joshua Dohring is a resident of the United States Virgin Islands, where he operates a charter boat business. On November 8, 2004, the Petitioner purchased, in St. Petersburg, Florida, a 36-foot catamaran sailboat (hull No. QPQ0000D089) for $113,000. On November 15, 2004, the Petitioner purchased, in St. Petersburg, Florida, an inflatable tender with outboard motor and accessories (hull No. XMO18119G405) for $4,865. The catamaran and tender were purchased for the use of Joshua Dohring in his charter boat business in the Virgin Islands. They were to replace his previous boat that was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan. Because Joshua Dohring did not have sufficient financial resources or credit, Brenda Dohring and Robert Hicks decided to make the purchases for him. They created the Petitioner corporation to purchase and own the catamaran and tender because they wanted protection from personal liability that might arise from Joshua Dohring's use of the vessels in the Virgin Islands. At the time of each purchase, Joshua Dohring was provided a Department affidavit form to be completed and filed with the Department to claim exemption from sales tax. Joshua Dohring indicated the name of the Petitioner corporation on the affidavit forms along with the names of the corporation's directors. The Department's affidavit form for sales tax exemption includes several statements that the affiant must attest to, including the following: 4. I represent a corporation which has no officer or director who is a resident of, or makes his or her permanent place of abode in Florida. David Erdman, a licensed yacht broker in Florida who assisted Joshua Dohring in the purchase of the catamaran and tender, believed that the purchases were exempt from Florida sales tax because Joshua Dohring was not a Florida resident and was going to remove the vessels from Florida. Mr. Erdman did not understand that, because the purchaser was not Joshua Dohring, but a Florida corporation, the sales tax exemption did not apply. Mr. Erdman advised Joshua Dohring that the purchases were exempt from Florida sales tax. There is no evidence in the record, and the Department did not allege, that the Petitioner intended to defraud the State. On this record, it is clear that the Petitioner's directors were simply mistaken in their belief that the purchases of the boats were exempt from Florida sales tax, based primarily on the erroneous advice of Mr. Erdman. The Department made a routine investigation after its receipt of the sales tax exemption affidavits signed by Mr. Dohring and determined that the exemption did not apply because the Petitioner is a Florida corporation with directors who are residents of Florida. In January 2005, the Department notified the Petitioner of its billing for the sales tax due on the boat purchases, plus penalty and interest, totaling $8,474.67. An informal conference regarding the billing was requested by the Petitioner, and a conference was held in an attempt to resolve the matter. Subsequently, the Department's Final Assessment was issued on January 23, 2005, indicating tax, penalty, and interest totaling $9,229.26. Because of the circumstances indicating that the Petitioner's failure to pay was due to a mistake and bad advice, the Department proposes to eliminate the penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue an final order: finding that the Petitioner's purchases of the catamaran and inflatable tender are subject to sales tax; and assessing sales tax of six percent on the purchases; and imposing interest on the taxes until paid; and imposing no penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 22nd day of September, 2005.
The Issue The issue presented is whether HMY New Yacht Sales, Inc., is liable for the payment of use tax, together with penalty and interest, on a yacht which it purchased for resale and for use as a demonstrator.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner HMY New Yacht Sales, Inc., is a Florida cor-poration located in Dania, Florida. It is a franchise and an authorized dealer for several lines of new boats. Petitioner is registered as a dealer for Florida sales tax purposes and has a dealer decal. Petitioner became an authorized dealer for Davis Yachts, a manufacturer located in North Carolina, in 1985. In January 1990 Petitioner purchased a boat from Davis Yachts to be used for demonstration and promotional activities and for resale. The boat was a 47-foot fiberglass sports fisherman named "The Bandit." When the boat was delivered, Petitioner outfitted The Bandit with extensive electronics and fishing equipment, including a tuna tower, outriggers, a fighting chair, rocket launchers, and live wells. It took approximately two months (until the second week in March 1990) to outfit the boat to have it ready for its intended sports fishing purpose. The type of equipping done by Petitioner is typical of that done on every such boat when it is sold since such a boat cannot be used for its intended purpose without the electronics and other equipment. Petitioner, however, wanted the boat to be "ready to go," when Petitioner sold it rather than having the purchaser wait for the outfitting to be done before the purchaser could use the boat. Petitioner paid the factory approximately $520,000 for the boat. Petitioner's payments to local vendors for services and materials used in outfitting the boat brought Petitioner's cost to approximately $590,000. The Bandit was never documented or registered in the state of Florida. It was only operated under Petitioner's dealer registration and decal, as provided in Section 327.13, Florida Statutes. The boat was purchased with the intent to sell it, and it was always for sale from the first moment it was outfitted and ready to be shown. It was never Petitioner's intent to keep the boat. As soon as it was outfitted, the boat had on board, at all times, a file containing a complete inventory of the boat's equipment, including custom and standard options, and a color brochure with pictures of the boat to be given to potential customers. While Petitioner was attempting to sell the boat, it was also used by Petitioner as a sales promotional tool. Petitioner took the boat to various fishing tournaments and exhibited it at boat shows and open houses. Davis Yachts bore some of the expense of those activities since promoting the boat inured to the benefit of Davis as well as of Petitioner. When the boat was being used for promotional or sales activities, it would always have on board employees or salespersons of Petitioner or of Davis Yachts and customers. On occasion, family members accompanied Petitioner's salespersons on board the boat. The manner in which The Bandit was marketed--taking it to fishing tournaments and boat shows and having open house at various events--is typically the way new sport fisherman yachts are sold throughout the industry. The boat was shown to prospective customers at least once a month. Approximately 50 customers were taken on sea trials. The boat was never loaned or rented to anyone. It was used only under the direction of Petitioner or Davis Yachts. The only compensation received by Petitioner relating to the boat resulted from the occasions when Davis Yachts split some of the expenses for the promotional or sales activities. The boat did not sell as quickly as Petitioner hoped. In October 1990 Petitioner placed the boat on the Buck System, a multiple listing service which distributes information to other yacht brokers concerning boats which are for sale. Generally, boat dealers would not put new inventory in the multiple listing system. Petitioner did so in this instance, however, in order to quickly sell the boat because the government had announced a luxury tax proposal which Petitioner feared would result in a downturn in the boat market. Even with all the effort put into attempting to sell the boat, it did not sell until November 1991. In July 1992 the Department began a routine sales tax audit of Petitioner. The audit was completed in September 1992 and covered the period of time from March 1987 through February 1992. The Department auditor determined that Petitioner owed use tax on The Bandit because in November 1990, on the advice of its accountant, Petitioner took the boat out of its inventory account and placed it in its fixed assets account in order to take depreciation for federal income tax purposes. Based solely on Petitioner's treatment of the vessel on its corporate books, the auditor determined that Petitioner converted The Bandit to its own use and was, therefore, responsible for payment of the statutory use tax rate of 6 percent of the value of the boat as reflected on Petitioner's records. Based upon the audit, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment, assessing Petitioner $33,921.94 in tax, $8,480.50 in penalty, and $7,085.52 in interest through September 16, 1992. Interest continues to accrue at $11.15 per day.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that Petitioner is not liable for payment of use tax, penalty, or interest on The Bandit, and withdrawing the assessment which is the subject of this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-12, 15, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 14, and 18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 16, 17, and 20 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, and 10 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington & Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether the Petitioner owes sale and/or use tax for the purchase/lease of magnetic tapes containing mailing lists used by the Petitioner in its mail order business, as set forth in the Notice of Decision dated December 10, 2003, and, if so, the amount owed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, including the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. See § 213.05, Florida Statutes (2004). At the times material to this proceeding, Spectramin was a Florida "S" corporation whose home office and principal place of business was located at 5401 Northwest 102 Avenue, Suite 119, Sunrise, Florida. Spectramin was a Florida- registered sales tax dealer. On October 19, 2001, the Department issued to Spectramin a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records for audit number A0127016590, which was a sales and use tax audit covering the Audit Period. On January 15, 2002, the Department and Spectramin signed an audit agreement that delineated the procedures and sampling method to be used by the Department for the audit. Because Spectramin's books and records were voluminous, the Department and Spectramin agreed to employ certain specified sampling procedures. For the audit, the Department examined Spectramin's purchase invoices, general ledgers, and income statements for the 2000 calendar year. At the times material to this proceeding, Spectramin was a mail-order company that sold nutritional supplements throughout the United States. It engaged in direct marketing of its products and employed two methods of direct marketing: Self-mailers were sent to prospective customers, and catalogs were sent to persons who had purchased its products, as a means of educating these buyers and converting them into repeat customers.1 In order to send self-mailers to prospective customers, Spectramin leased mailing lists consisting of names and addresses, and, in some instances, bar codes, compiled by various vendors who sold mailing lists. The contents of the mailing lists were based on demographic criteria specified by Spectramin. Under the terms of the lease, Spectramin was allowed to use the mailing list for only one mailing. Pertinent to this proceeding, Spectramin received some of the mailing lists in the form of data digitally encoded on magnetic tapes. The cost of leasing a mailing list was based on the number of names on the list, and the invoice for a list included a separately-stated, standard charge of $25.00 to cover the cost of the magnetic tape containing the data. The magnetic tapes themselves had no value to Spectramin; the only value of the tapes to Spectramin lay in the data encoded on the tapes, and the greatest part of the cost of the one-time lease was the cost of the data encoded on the magnetic tapes; for example, Spectramin paid $75.00 per 1,000 names for one of the mailing lists it leased, plus the $25.00 charge for the magnetic tape. Spectramin did not pay sales tax in Florida on the cost of the data encoded on the magnetic tapes at the time it leased the mailing lists. Spectramin did not have the computer equipment necessary to read the data on magnetic tapes, so it contracted with third-party letter shops and printers to process the magnetic tapes. The letter shops with which Spectramin has done business since 1991 are all located outside the state of Florida. Once a letter shop received magnetic tapes from Spectramin, the data on the tapes were downloaded to a computer, and cleaned, and sorted into usable names and addresses; the letter shop then sent the cleaned and sorted data to a print shop, which printed the names and addresses onto self-mailers provided by Spectramin. The letter shop sorted the self-mailers by zip code and mailed them. All of these operations took place outside Florida. At one time, Spectramin's practice was to have the mailing-list vendors ship the magnetic tapes encoded with the data directly to a letter shop specified by Spectramin. The letter shop held the Spectramin magnetic tapes until it had accumulated several tapes, and then it would process the data from the tapes, have the names and addresses printed on the self-mailers, and mail the self-mailers. Spectramin found that the letter shops with which it did business sometimes lost track of the tapes received for Spectramin's mailings, and it cost Spectramin additional time and money to track down the tapes or to purchase mailing lists. Because of the additional time and money Spectramin spent to track down the lists, it stopped having the magnetic tapes sent directly to the letter shop. At the times material to this proceeding, the magnetic tapes containing the digitally-encoded mailing lists were shipped directly to Spectramin by the mailing-list vendors, and Spectramin took delivery of the tapes at its principal place of business in Florida. The vendors sent the mailing lists to Spectramin's Florida office by overnight delivery through either Federal Express or United Parcel Service. It was Spectramin's usual business practice for an employee to take delivery of the magnetic tapes containing the mailing lists and to place them on a shelf in the front of the office. The boxes containing the magnetic tapes were not opened. When Spectramin had accumulated several boxes of magnetic tapes, an employee put the boxes into a larger box and sent the tapes by overnight delivery to one of the out-of-state letter shops with which Spectramin did business. Spectramin did not keep the tapes in its Florida office more than one or two days because the mailing lists it had leased lost their value with time.2 The only value of the magnetic tapes was in the names and addressed encoded on the tapes, and the only use to which Spectramin put the data was to cause the names and addresses it had leased to be printed on self-mailers and mailed to the prospective customers. Because the letter shops that printed the names and addresses and mailed the self-mailers were located outside of Florida, Spectramin did not "use" the data or the magnetic tapes in Florida. The only contact the magnetic tapes had with Florida was during the short period of time the tapes sat on the shelf at Spectramin's office before being shipped out of the state for processing. Spectramin did not pay use tax in Florida on the cost of the data encoded on the magnetic tapes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order withdrawing the sales and use tax assessment against Spectramin, Inc., for the audit period extending from September 1, 1996, through August 31, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2005.
