Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 16-637 S, Series 4-COP, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1983, 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 5th day of August, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Actions dated July 7, 2008, and September 5, 2008, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Respondent was licensed under the Florida Beverage Law by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner, having been issued License Number 26-07803, Series KLD, by Petitioner. A Series KLD license is one issued by Petitioner to distribute alcoholic beverages. Petitioner seeks to impose sanctions on Respondent for violations of Subsection 561.29(1)(a), within Subsection 561.29(1)(a), within Subsection 561.55(3)(a), Florida Statutes, on February 18, 2008. Petitioner also seeks to impose sanctions on Respondent for violations of Subsections 561.411(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, for the period on December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007. Christopher John Eiras (Eiras) is the managing director of Respondent distributing company. Eiras closed on the purchase of Respondent on August 31, 2007. Although he took over ownership of Respondent on that date, he had been involved with helping the company since its inception and had been directly involved in the creation of the business. Respondent, as a corporate entity and the holder of the license, is ultimately responsible for the violations alleged in the Administrative Action, if proven. Moreover, Eiras kept the records for the audit period at issue in his house and, therefore, had control over the records requested by Petitioner. Petitioner performed an audit of Respondent for the time period of December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007. In the course of the audit, and pursuant to Subsection 561.29(1)(j), Florida Statutes, Petitioner requested that Respondent produce certain records. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-4.023, "distributors shipping or delivering alcoholic beverages for consumption outside the confines of the State of Florida must supply the Division with a copy of the bill of lading, must show the type of beverages, amount by size container and gallonage of each type shipped by common carrier or licensees' vehicles and a certificate from a representative of the appropriate agency of the jurisdiction into which the alcoholic beverages were shipped stating the shipment has been reported properly to that agency." Respondent supplied general documentation from FedEx and UPS regarding shipments, but Petitioner believes this documentation falls short of what is required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-4.023. The records requested by Petitioner are significant because they form the basis for giving a distributor a deduction from the payment of excise tax, the tax required to be remitted to the State of Florida, for out-of-state sales. The distributor must pay the excise tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages within Florida. Petitioner had worked closely with Respondent and made numerous attempts to bring Respondent into compliance through its records production. Because Eiras was the new owner of Respondent, and because the former auditor (with 37 years of experience) passed away during the audit of Respondent, the new auditor, Margaret Perez, gave Respondent what she termed "an enormous gift" by settling the audit for liabilities of $829.39 and $45.22, with the understanding that Respondent would still produce the requested records. Petitioner issued two letters related to the audit. The first, dated August 15, 2008, found a liability of $45.22, and required payment within ten days of receipt of the letter. No mention was made in the letter of any documents required to be produced by Respondent. Respondent timely paid the $45.22 liability. The second, dated August 18, 2008, found a liability of $828.39 and required payment within 10 days of receipt of the letter. No mention was made in the letter of any documents required to be produced by Respondent. Respondent timely paid the $828.39 liability. Petitioner testified that acceptance of the payments from Respondent did not excuse the production of documents, yet no official communication was issued by Petitioner requiring such production following the August letters and payment of the liabilities set forth in those communications by Respondent. Additionally, pursuant to Subsections 561.411(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, Respondent is required to own "an inventory of alcoholic beverages which is equal to at least 10 percent of the distributor's annual case sales to licensed vendors within this state or to licensed vendors within the malt beverage distributor's exclusive sales territory; or [a]n inventory for which the cost of acquisition is not less than $100,000." The Distributor Qualifications audit showed that Respondent had zero value for its inventory. Further, although Respondent claimed inventory for two supplier products, Urban Brands and Happy Vodka Corporation, both of which are owned by Eiras, Petitioner has not received proof of payment for these products from Respondent that satisfies its interpretation of the requirements of law. Respondent supplied company-generated spreadsheets which, it argues, are sufficient to comply with Petitioner's requirements. These spreadsheets specifically list the inventory as of August 31, 2007, the date of the purchase of Respondent by Eiras from Gray Solomon, the previous owner. The inventory is listed by item number, item description, number of items on hand, average cost per item, percent of total asset, sales price, retail value, percent of total retail, and owned inventory. This detailed spreadsheet shows a total owned inventory of $139,964.24, an asset value of $480,731.15 (most of which is under bailment for other suppliers), and a total retail value of $624,140.59 for all product, whether owned or under bailment. Petitioner expected to receive the source documents or back-up for the inventory and sales. Respondent provided canceled checks and invoices at some point that it believed satisfied this request. Clearly, Respondent was not timely in its response to Petitioner's document requests. Respondent supplied documents such as invoices and bills of lading showing deliveries to Respondent's warehouse in Jacksonville and shipments to locations both within Florida and out-of-state. A question remains as to whether the back-up material fully responds to Respondent's requests for production of documents under Subsection 561.29(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for the audit period. Petitioner has not accepted the documentation provided by Respondent as proof of Respondent's compliance with the audit document request. No complete explanations were offered by Petitioner as to why it would not accept Respondent's documentation as at least some evidence of Respondent's intent to comply with Petitioner's document request. Petitioner offered testimony that it believed shipments were being made by entities other than Respondent. The documentation supplied by Respondent, however, shows numerous shipments and receipts of alcoholic beverage products in the name of "Liquor Group Florida" or "Liquor Group Florida, LLC."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order as follows: Assessing a $500.00 fine against Respondent for violating Subsection 561.29(1)(j), Florida Statutes; Ordering Respondent to produce all reasonably requested records for any and all future audits, including, but not limited to, bills of lading as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-4.023, for sales made outside of Florida; Dismissing the Administrative Action against Respondent alleging violations of Subsection 561.411(1)(a) or (b), Florida Statutes; and Dismissing the Administrative Action against Respondent alleging violations of Subsection 561.55(3)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 4th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarah Christine Naf, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Joshua B. Moye, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Christopher John Eiras 830-13 A1A North, No. 155 Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerry Geier, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
