The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Loroco, Inc., held license number 16-01137, series 4COP, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on and off the premises known as Jesters Bar & Grill, located at 801 Northeast 62nd Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (the "licensed premises"). In December 1996, the Department randomly selected Respondent for a beverage surcharge audit.1 The purpose of such audit was to resolve whether the monthly reports submitted and the surcharges remitted by the vendor since January 1, 1995, were accurate or, stated differently, whether such submittals were supported by retail records maintained by the vendor. In April 1997, the Department's auditor met with Respondent's accountant (Joel Marcus) to inform him of the audit procedures and to request the documentation required for the audit. Subsequently, Respondent confirmed that it had elected the "purchase method" of reporting, and that it claimed a deduction (adjustment) for alcoholic beverages sold in their original containers for consumption off premises (package sales).2 Respondent further advised the Department that it had documentation to support the deduction it claimed for package sales; however, it failed to produce (or account for the absence of) any such documentation during the course of the audit or at anytime thereafter.3 Since Respondent was unable to produce any documentation to support its package sales deduction, the Department offered to delay the audit for six months (rather than concluding the audit and denying Respondent's claim for the package sales deduction) to allow Respondent an opportunity to maintain records of package sales for a six-month period (referred to as a six-month prospective audit) and, if those records produced a reliable result, apply that percentage of package sales to the entire audit period. As for the records to be kept during the prospective audit period, the Department requested that Respondent maintain, inter alia, a beginning and ending inventory for all alcoholic beverages in the package store; a price list identifying each product by name, bottle size, and category (i.e., beer, wine, or liquor), which would permit specific identification of the product on cash register tapes when a package sale was made; and a daily cash register tape (reflecting each package sale), as well as a daily summary showing the date and gallonage by category and the bank deposit made for each day's activities. Respondent's accountant acknowledged agreement with such procedures, and the prospective audit period began July 1, 1997, and extended through December 31, 1997. In January 1998, after the prospective audit period ended, the Department's auditor sought Respondent's records so that he could conclude the audit; however, it was not until around April 1998 that any records were produced. Notably, the only record produced by Respondent was a log book, which ostensibly recorded the daily package sales. Sales were variously described by brand name or generic name (i.e., vodka, gin, rum, tequila, chardonnay), and the number of items sold was identified by the number of bottles, with or without reference to bottle size. Stapled to each page of the log book was what was represented to be a cash register tape which showed daily gross sales in dollars. Notably, there was no beginning and ending inventory; the log book contained no price reference; Respondent produced no price list identifying each product by name, bottle size, and category; and there was no daily case register tape which itemized (identified) each product sold. Notwithstanding the failings of Respondent's record keeping, the Department's auditor attempted to accommodate Respondent by speaking with its manager to secure the quantity (gallonage) and price of each item sold so that he could discern whether the prospective audit would support a package sale deduction. However, such additional information merely reinforced the inadequacy or unreliability of Respondent's record keeping, and demonstrated that there was no record basis or, stated differently, no "factual, substantial evidence" to support a package sales deduction. Rule 61A-4.063(9), Florida Administrative Code. In so concluding, it is observed that Respondent's records were not only woefully inadequate, but were also inherently unreliable. Such unreliability is evident from the fact that the cash register tape, which purported to represent daily gross sales in dollars, failed to match the total of daily sales in the log book; the actual monthly reports submitted (and surcharge paid) to the state during the period of the prospective audit (July 1, 1997, through December 31, 1997) claimed a package sales deduction that was, without explanation, at material variance from the package sales reported in the log book; and the package sales reported in the log book bore no rational relationship to any package sales deduction claimed by Respondent for any of the audit period. Consequently, it must be concluded that Respondent failed to demonstrate its entitlement to a package sales deduction for the audit period of January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1997, and that, as alleged by the Department, Respondent has an outstanding tax liability of $64,157.86 (surcharge due of $44,421.05, penalties due of $15,352.33, and interest due of $4,384.48), as of April 15, 1998.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 561.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Action. It is further RECOMMENDED that for such violation the final order require the satisfaction of the debt to the Department or the execution of a mutually-agreeable payment plan within 30 days of the entry of the final order, failing which Respondent's satisfied or a payment plan is approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 23rd day of August, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on the ground Respondent allegedly violated Section 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, David Carl Boston, operated a restaurant and lounge under the name of Mr. D's Restaurant and Lounge at 2262 Orchard Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent has been issued special restaurant license number 26-0701, series 4COP SRX, by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent began operating his restaurant and lounge in February 1996, but ceased doing business in July 1997. Respondent's license authorizes him to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises, so long as the restaurant has at least 2,500 square feet of service area, it can seat at least 150 patrons at tables, and at least 51 percent of the gross revenue is derived from the sale of non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent was aware of this requirement when he applied for a license. Indeed, item 10 on his application specifically noted these special requirements. Accordingly, Respondent knew, or should have known, that he would need adequate records to show that these requirements were being met. To enforce the above requirements, the Division performs periodic audits of all restaurants holding special licenses. As a part of that audit process, on February 3, 1997, special agent Myers contacted Respondent and requested that he "[p]roduce within 14 days all records including but not limited to all sales receipts, register tapes, invoices for food, alcoholic bev. & non-alcoholic bev., employee time records, all purchase and sales receipts, as required per Florida law." The records were to cover the twelve-month period from February 1996 through January 1997. Respondent acknowledged receiving the Notice to produce the records on February 3, 1997, by signing the Notice in agent Myers' office. Within a few days, Respondent produced a large plastic shopping bag full of records, which has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The bag includes receipts for alcoholic beverage purchases and other miscellaneous items, but virtually no receipts for food purchases. There are also so- called "summary sheets," which are handwritten summaries of receipts for food and alcoholic beverage sales for most of the months during the audit period, and cash register tapes which ostensibly support the entries on the summaries. The records are poorly organized and unsophisticated, and they are very difficult for a third person to analyze. Thus, they fail to comport with Division Rule 61A-3.0141(3)1., Florida Administrative Code, which requires that a licensee must "maintain separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages and all purchases and gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages." Because of the lack of receipts for food purchases, the Division could not establish a percentage of food sales for the audit period. Receipts for food purchases are typically used by the Division as a measuring stick against purchases of alcoholic beverages to determine an allocation of revenues. Despite several subsequent conversations between agent Myers and Respondent in an effort to obtain further clarification and documentation, agent Myers could not establish the appropriate division of revenues between food and alcoholic beverages. On the evening of February 6, 1997, agent Myers visited Respondent's premises between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. He found approximately five customers on the premises, all at the bar, and only one employee, who was acting as bartender. The kitchen was shut down, and no food was visible to the naked eye. Agent Myers did notice a bag of frozen chicken wings in a freezer, but no other food was on the shelves or in the refrigerator. He also counted the chairs on the premises and found only 111. On February 18, 1997, agent Myers returned to the premises and found only 107 chairs for patrons. On both visits by agent Myers, Respondent had less seating capacity for food customers than is required under his special license. In addition, contrary to a Division rule requirement, full-course meals were not available at those times even though the restaurant was serving alcoholic beverages. At hearing, Respondent initially contended that he was confused as to the requirements for his license. Given the plain language in item 10 of his application, however, which clearly identifies the restrictions, this explanation has not been accepted. At the same time, it is noted that Respondent offered to voluntarily surrender his license to the Division in July 1997, since he knew that he could not meet the special conditions imposed under the law. The Division refused, however, on the ground an Adminstrative Action was pending against his license. Respondent acknowledged that on both February 7 and 18, 1997, he had less chairs for food customers than is required. Therefore, this portion of the charges has been sustained. In mitigation, he attributed this to his birthday party on one of those evenings and a "talent show" to be held on another evening, although virtually no customers were on the premises on either date when the inspections took place. Respondent has a menu from which customers can order, and he says he also has a daily luncheon buffet. In explaining the lack of food purchase receipts, Respondent claimed that most of his food was purchased from Premier Meats in Jacksonville, Florida, a retailer that caters to small businesses, such as Respondent's. According to a representative of Premier Meats, Nathanial A. Griffin, that firm conducts a "cash and carry" business, with no accounts receivables, and thus it does not invoice its customers. Griffin recalled that Respondent regularly made weekly purchases of chicken wings, gizzards, and white filets, which totaled between $60.00 to $80.00 per week, on average. Assuming this to be true, this equates to approximately $250.00 to $300.00 per month in food purchases from that vendor. The undersigned has independently reviewed the summary sheets, which Respondent says were prepared on a contemporaneous basis from cash register tapes. They reflect that the following revenues were derived from food and alcoholic beverage sales during the months of February 1996 Food through December 1996: Alcohol February 119.70 86.00 March 1200.10 851.85 April 3678.10 731.20 May 3121.27 1170.00 June 3026.90 956.00 July 1401.50 770.04 August 1771.25 1540.70 September 1504.85 2789.32 October 372.25 742.25 November 2941.01 2217.50 December 1376.04 948.50 Total 20513.97 12803.36 If the testimony of witness Giffin is accepted, then Respondent's food purchases from Premier Meats during the eleven month period would be no more than $3000.00. Given the lack of any other food receipts, the large number of receipts for purchases of alcoholic beverages, and the description of the premises on the two occasions when agent Myers inspected the closed kitchen, it is found that the summaries are not credible, due to a lack of underlying documentation. Therefore, it is found that Respondent did not derive at least 51 percent of his gross revenue from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, as charged in the Administrative Action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's special restaurant license no. 26-07010 for violating Section 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, without prejudice to obtain any other type of license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for five years from the date of the Final Order. Respondent should also have a $1,000.00 administrative fine imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 David Carl Boston 2262 Orchard Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for violation of Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Resolution of this issue requires a determination of whether Respondent correctly reported and remitted alcoholic beverage surcharges.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Betty Schmidt. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, she held alcoholic beverage license no. 74-00275, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises located at 1161 North U.S. 1, Ormond Beach, Florida. Petitioner's auditor, Muriel Johnson, performs audits on vendors monthly surcharge reports in order to confirm the accuracy of those reports and ensure compliance with statutory and administrative rule requirements. The audit in the instant case covered the reporting period of Respondent from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1997. Alcoholic beverage licensees are afforded an opportunity to elect to report and pay the surcharge by either the purchase method or the sales method. Under the purchase method, a licensee pays the surcharge on alcoholic beverages purchased from authorized distributors. Under the sales method, licensees pay the surcharge on alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on the premises. Respondent elected to report via the sales method. A licensee's reporting under the sales method is audited by the Sales Depletion Method. Under this methodology, a beginning inventory is ascertained. Second, purchases made by the licensee for the audit period are computed. Third, an ending inventory for the audit period is ascertained. Fourth, Gross Gallonage Available For Sale is computed by adding the beginning inventory to the purchases made during the audit period and then subtracting the ending inventory. Fifth, the Net Gallonage Available For Sale during the audit period is calculated by subtracting from the Gross Gallonage an allowance for spillage and a cooking adjustment. The end result is termed the Adjusted Sales Gallonage from which amount the amount of surcharge owed for the audit period is determined. Because Respondent did not keep inventory figures, and based upon her assertion that her inventory was generally the same, Respondent and the auditor agreed upon zero as the starting inventory. Second, purchases of alcoholic beverages by Respondent during the audit period were computed based upon purchase figures provided by Respondent and verified independently through records obtained from distributors. Third, the ending inventory was agreed to be zero. Fourth, The gross gallonage available for sale was determined by adding the beginning inventory (zero) to the purchases made during the audit period and subtracting the ending inventory (also zero). Fifth, adjustments to net gallonage for sale included allowances for spillage and package sales. Notably, the audit revealed that Respondent was treating liquor mixers as wine coolers and paying a lower tax on that basis when in fact wine coolers are taxed at the rate of one ounce of liquor per container at a higher rate. Adjustments for this practice were also made. Finally, the total surcharge due for the audit period was calculated and compared to the amount already reported in order to determine the amount of under- reported or over-reported tax. Respondent sets up various disbursement stations for beer on her property during “bike week” in Daytona Beach. With only one cash register, the sales at the various stations are maintained by hand on clipboards. Additional staff is employed at this time and Respondent is not personally present at each station to monitor sales reporting. Frequent sources of alcoholic beverage sales that are not captured by a license’s cash register include theft, breakage, leakage, spillage, overpouring of drinks, and free drinks. The amounts of alcoholic beverage that are lost to a cash register in these ways are captured by Petitioner’s sales audit method. While Respondent keeps good records, no cash register method can ever capture all of the alcoholic beverages available for consumption on premises and consequently there will always be some discrepancy as the result of a sales method audit. As established by results of Petitioner's audit, Respondent underpaid surcharges for the audit period in the amount of $890. Additionally, it is established that Respondent owes $557.66 in penalties and $193.33 in interest on the payment deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring payment by Respondent in the amount of $1641.10, the amount of total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Betty Schmidt Smiley's Tap 1161 North U.S. 1 Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I hereby recommend that the Petitioner's challenge to the Department's determination of sales taxes due herein pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, be denied and that the revised assessment notices be upheld as issued. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Davis, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert F. Nunez, Esquire Post Office Box 12726 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Mercer Farrington, Esquire Post Office Box 1548 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this instance are presented through a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint, in which the Petitioner accuses Respondent, Mary Hordge, through actions of her agent, servant or employee, Mary Donnovan, of unlawfully selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by the license, namely the sale for consumption on-premises under the package sales license, contrary to Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Mary E. Hordge, referred to in the Administrative Complaint is the holder of License No. 26-2310, Series No. 2-APS. That type license allows the sale of beer and wine as package sales for consumption off-premises. On- premises consumption is not authorized by that license. An inspection of the licensed premises was made on June 3, 1983. The licensed premises is in Jacksonville, Florida. The licensed premises was open for business on that date. When the inspector entered, Johnny L. Holmes, son of licensee and business manager of the licensed premises, was seated at a counter and an opened can of Coors beer was on the counter in front of him. Another employee of the licensed premises at that time was one Mary Darwell, who is a cook in the licensed premises, and whose other responsibilities include clearing of tables in the bar area. No other conduct was observed related to alcoholic beverages.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Holiday Inn Oceanside/Cleveland Caribbean, Inc., is liable for the payment of $10,176.18, together with a penalty of 5 percent and interest accruing daily as claimed in the audit by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Revenue, for the period September 1, 1975, through August 31, 1970.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Respondent, Holiday Inn Oceanside/Cleveland Caribbean, Inc.`s challenge to the tax audit conducted by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Revenue, covering the period September 1, 1975, through August 31, 1978. The claim of the audit is for sales tax due pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and its supporting rules found in the Florida Administrative Code. The audit document showing the Proposed Notice of Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit A admitted into evidence. Although the audit document originally claimed tax in the amount of $29,600.37, at the commencement of the hearing the amount remaining in dispute was $15,288.75, together with a penalty of 5 percent and interest accruing until date of payment. During the hearing, a stipulation was entered into between the parties to the effect that, of the remaining disputed tax, penalty and interest, $5,112.57, together with the applicable penalty and interest was acknowledged to be owed by the Respondent. Therefore, there remains in dispute the amount of $10,176.18, with a 5 percent penalty and interest accruing until date of payment. This amount of tax, penalty and interest claimed represents the difference between the tax rate which the Petitioner has applied in this assessment process and the tax rate that the Respondent claims to be applicable. The Petitioner claims that a tax rate of 4.5 percent against total receipts, in keeping with the authority of Rule 12A-1.57(3), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent counters that position by offering its own formula arrived at in view of the nature of its prices charged its customers, and that tax rate is 4.1666667 percent. The sales in question during the audit period pertain to sales of alcoholic and malt beverage in the lounges of the Respondent's licensed premises located in Dade County, Florida. The facts reveal that the sale of all alcoholic beverages in the time period at issue were made in increments of a quarter dollar ($.25). These quarter-dollar increments included the imposition of sales tax. As example: SALES PRICE TAX TOTAL $ .48 $.02 $ .50 .72 .03 .75 .96 .04 1.00 1.20 .05 1.25 1.44 .06 1.50 1.68 .07 1.75 Although the tax was computed on the sales price and this system was made known to the public by prominently displaying the price list, which list indicated that the beverage prices included tax; the Respondent did not separate the increment of the total price into categories of sales price and tax at the time of each transaction. Consequently, the books audited in the process of making the claim for assessment only demonstrated the total sales price of a given day's alcoholic beverage sales as an aggregate and did not reflect the tax as a separate item from the sales price. To this aggregate amount the Respondent applied its tax rate formula of 4.166667 by taking the amount of total receipts for the day and dividing by 1.04666667 to get gross sales. The gross sales were then subtracted from the amount of total receipts to obtain the figure for tax collected. This method was rounded off to the nearest penny on each day of computation. The Petitioner, as stated before, relies on Rule 12A-1.57(3), Florida Administrative Code, as a basis for its claim that the rate of tax should be 4.5 percent. That provision states: (3) Dealers in alcoholic and malt beverages are required to remit the actual tax collected to the State. In some instances, however, it may be impractical for such dealers to separately record the sales price of the beverage and the tax collected thereon. In such cases, dealers may elect to report tax on the following basis. Package stores who sell no mixed drinks should remit the tax at 4.3 percent of total receipts and dealers who sell mixed drinks or a combination of mixed drinks and packaged goods should remit the tax at the rate of 4.5 percent of total receipts. In those instances where the sales price and the tax have not been separately recorded but where it can be demonstrated that the public has been put on notice by means of price lists posted prominently throughout the establishment that the total charge includes tax, the dealer may deduct the tax from the total receipts to arrive at the appropriate tax and gross sales figures using the method shown below: Total receipts divided by the tax rate = gross sales. For example, a package store which sells no mixed drinks and whose total receipts are $2,000 would compute sales as follows: $2,000 divided by 1.043 percent = gross sales $1,917.54 tax collected 82.46 A dealer who sells drinks or a combination of drinks and package goods and whose total receipts are $2,000 would compute sales as follows: $2,000 divided by 1.045 percent = gross sales $1,913.87 tax collected 86.12 When the public has hot been put on notice through the posting of price lists that tax is included in the total charge, tax shall be computed by multiplying total receipts by the applicable rates referred to in this rule. In the mind of the Petitioner, by failing to segregate the total amounts collected into the categories of sales price and tax and then to remit the tax collected as a separate item, the Respondent is relegated to the utilization of Rule 12A-1.57(3), Florida Administrative Code, in remitting its tax. Under its theory, the Petitioner has taken the total receipts recorded in the Respondent's work sheets and divided those total receipts by the formula 1.045 percent to get gross sales and then subtracted the gross sales from the amount of total receipts to get the amount of tax that should have been collected, and then made a further subtraction of the tax which the Respondent remitted, from the tax formula which the Petitioner claims to be due on the transactions to arrive at the tax presently outstanding. This amount being the figure referenced above. From that computation, the amount of penalty and interest has been claimed. (By its position the Petitioner does not seem to question the fact that the public has been put on notice by price lists posted throughout the establishment that the total charge reflected on the price lists includes tax, as referred to in the subject Rule 12A-1.57(3), Florida Administrative Code.) According to the Respondent, the reason for the utilization of the rate of 4.1666667 percent was the fact that all beverages having a break in price increments of a quarter-dollar ($.25), it is mathematically impossible for the proper effective rate being charged on all beverages sold in the lounges to vary from their tax rate of 4.1666667 percent because each increment of increase has the same ratio of sales price to tax. The Respondent argues that to claim a rate of 4.5 percent causes the collection in excess of the amount allowed by Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. After considering the position of the parties, the Respondent is found to be correct in its position. The overall scheme of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, calls for the taxation of sales of tangible personal property at a rate of 4 percent, see Section 212.05, Florida Statutes. A further refinement of that theory is found in Subsection 212.12(10), Florida Statutes, which creates a bracketing system for sales representing the various fractions of a dollar in amount. This bracketing system thereby causes imposition of a sales tax greater than 4 percent in some transactions. The Petitioner is granted further authority to refine the system of taxation by those provisions of Subsections 212.17(6) and 212.18(2), Florida Statutes, which state in turn: 212.17(6) The department shall have the power to make, prescribe and publish reasonable rules and regulations not inconsistent with this chapter, or the other laws, or the constitution of this state, or the United States, for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and the collection of revenue hereunder, and such rules and regulations shall when enforced be deemed to be reasonable and just. 212.18(2) The department shall administer and enforce the assessment and collection of the taxes, interest, and penalties imposed by this chapter. It is authorized to make and publish such rules and regulations not inconsistent with this chapter, as it may deem necessary in enforcing its provisions in order that there shall not be collected on the average more than the rate levied herein. The department is authorized to and it shall provide by rule and regulation a method for accomplishing this end. It shall prepare instructions to all persons required by this chapter to collect and remit the tax to guide such persons in the proper collection and remission of such tax and to instruct such persons in the practices that may be necessary for the purpose of enforcement of this chapter and the collection of the tax imposed hereby. The use of tokens in the collection of this tax is hereby expressly forbidden and prohibited. It can be seen that the Petitioner has the authority to promulgate the necessary rules for the accomplishment of the purpose of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, but is restricted in this task by being prohibited from making rules and regulations which are inconsistent with this chapter or other statutes within the laws of the State of Florida or the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Florida and it is further restricted from imposing rules or regulations which cause the tax to be collected on the average more than the rate levied in Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. While it is clear that the legislature intended to keep the effective rate of tax as near the 4 percent level as possible, it is also evident that the system contemplated a segregation of the amount collected in a sale as sales price, and the amount of tax applied to the sale at the point of the transaction. This is a means of accountability that helps insure that the proper remittance of tax due on each and every retail sales occurs. However, the preeminent charge to the Petitioner is the duty to collect the tax at a rate which most closely approximates the 4 percent called for, without abandoning responsibility or the close monitoring of the records of a given taxpayer. When considered in the overall context of the purpose of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, the method which the Respondent used to collect and remit tax, does not violate the conditions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, nor the rules designed to enforce that chapter. The tax rate of 4.1666667 percent has been proven to be correct, in the sense of more closely approximating the 4 percent tax rate called for than the application of a tax rate of 4.5 percent. The correctness is established because the increments charged for alcoholic beverages are always in the amount of a quarter-dollar ($.25) and each increment of increase carries the same tax rate. This fact, when considered with the additional fact that the break-out of the tax in the price structure as established by the Respondent, is in keeping with the tables of the bracket system found in Subsection 212.12(10), Florida Statutes, is sufficiently convincing to demonstrate the propriety of the Respondent's position. Nonetheless, a further examination of the Petitioner's argument is indicated. The focus of the Petitioner's position is Rule 12A-1.57(3), Florida Administrative Code, and a detailed reading of this rule reveals that dealers who have properly put the public on notice that their sales prices include tax, "may" elect to remit tax by using the formula of the rate of 4.5 percent of total receipts as the tax due. The use of the word "may" in this instance creates an option on the part of the Respondent, an option which it has elected not to proceed under and by the facts of this case, the alternate method which the Respondent used in computing this tax, i.e., the rate 4.1666667 percent is efficacious. Finally, the Petitioner has advanced the argument that the formula found in Rule 12A-1.57(3), Florida Administrative Code, is unique to that rule and may not be utilized unless the prerequisite factors are shown and unless the tax rate factor 4.5 percent is part of the formula. Even though the formula as expressed in Rule 12A-1.57(3), Florida Administrative Code, may have legitimate application to some cases, it is not preemptive in its scope and it would not prohibit the Respondent in this case from using the formula and substituting the rate of tax of 4.1666667 percent for the rate of 4.5 percent in that part of the formula. In summary, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate its entitlement to the tax, penalty and interest under its claim founded on Rule 12A-1.57(3), Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioner in this cause had submitted Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a Recommendation in the case styled, Holiday Inn Oceanside/Cleveland Caribbean, Inc., Petitioner, vs. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Respondent, D.O.A.H. Case No. 70-1003R, and in doing so made reference to matters which have been considered in the present case. Therefore, to the extent that those matters are not inconsistent with this Recommended Order they have been utilized. To the extent that those proposals are inconsistent with this Recommended Order they are specifically rejected. The Respondent has also submitted Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a Recommended Order and to the extent that those matters are not inconsistent with this Recommended Order they have been utilized. To the extent that those proposals are inconsistent with this Recommended Order they are specifically rejected.)
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Holiday Inn Oceanside/Cleveland Caribbean, Inc., be relieved from further responsibility to pay the amount of tax, $10,176.18 and the 5 percent penalty and interest accruing on that amount of tax. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 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: Martha J. Cook, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 422, Fletcher Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Watson, Esquire c/o Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell 1190 Union Commerce Building Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Mark J. Wolff, Esquire and Howard E. Roskin, Esquire First Federal Building, 30th Floor One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has incurred and failed to pay Petitioner a surcharge of $12,380.59 plus a penalty of $7553.07, in violation of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, and whether Respondent has failed to maintain the records required by Section 561.501(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-4.063(8), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 39-00410 4COP. Respondent owns and operates the Station Bar located at 1947 Main Street in Tampa. Respondent sells alcoholic beverages, but is not a “pouring bar.” In other words, Respondent’s employees sell the alcoholic beverages, but never open and pour the alcoholic beverage into a glass. In the typical transaction, Respondent sells a bottle or six-pack of alcoholic beverages to a patron, who may also purchase from Respondent a nonalcoholic beverage to mix with his alcoholic beverage, as well as cups and stirrers. Sometimes, the patrons remain in the bar after the purchase. Respondent’s bar contains a dance floor, pool tables, video games, and a juke box for the entertainment of patrons choosing to remain and consume their alcoholic beverages in the bar. Respondent’s accounting system is fairly simple. Placing labels on each bottle, Respondent’s employees remove the label each time that a bottle is sold. If a patron chooses to consume his drink on the premises, the bartender is supposed to record this fact on a piece of paper. Either the bartender or Respondent’s manager records sales information on a daily sheet; Respondent’s manager transfers the information to weekly and monthly sheets. Respondent eventually produced for Petitioner's auditor some daily sheets, but they were not sufficiently detailed to document Respondent’s position concerning the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption. Respondent also uses a two-tape cash register, but it shows only the sale amount and is not computerized. Neither tape reveals individual sales or whether the patron purchased his alcoholic beverage for consumption on premises. During the audit, Respondent took the position that about 60 percent of its sales of all alcoholic beverages were for off-premises consumption. However, despite repeated requests from Petitioner’s auditor, Respondent never produced a any detailed documentation of individual transactions. Instead, Respondent produced only highly summarized information supporting its position that few, if any, sales were for on- premises consumption. Petitioner’s auditor agreed to allow Respondent to keep detailed records of sales for on- and off-premises consumption for a period of time and then extrapolate the information back to the audit period. However, Respondent did not undertake such a process. Knowing that Respondent made some sales for consumption off premises, Petitioner’s auditor allocated 10 percent of all sales of beer and liquor for consumption off premises. Applying this 10 percent factor, Petitioner’s audit correctly determined that, from September 30, 1996, through December 31, 1998, Respondent incurred a surcharge liability of $14,114.90, as well as a penalty of $5,818.76, for a total liability of $19,933.66, taxes and penalty.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent liable for $12,380.59 in surcharge and $6190.29 in penalty, for a total liability of $18,570.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Michael Martinez Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Thomas A. Smith 800 West Platt, Suite 3 Tampa, Florida 33606 Captain John L. Blair 1313 Tampa Street Park Trammel Building, Suite 702 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact Following receipt of a complaint that Respondent was selling a particular brand of whiskey at a price lower than the whiskey dealer could buy, the various invoices received by Respondent were checked against the deal sheets in effect by Southern Wine and Spirits between January 1 and April 30, 1975. Exhibit 1 is a worksheet showing gross case purchases made by Crown from Southern during this period. Exhibit 2 is a copy of various deal sheets in effect during this period. Exhibit 3 shows a summary of Crown's purchases with the deals in effect as contained in Exhibit 2 and the three instances alleged where Crown appears to have been given a larger discount than the deal sheets indicate were proper. These figures and the exhibits show that on March 18 and 19 a 4,000 case deal was in effect and that on invoices dated March 18 Crown received 1,010 cases and on invoices dated March 19 Crown received 1,989 cases of whiskey. Neither total included bottles which when consolidated into cases would produce an additional 25 cases on March 18 and 61 cases on March 19. Total purchases from Southern Wine on March 18 and 19 was 3,085 cases. The invoice dated April 8 showed Crown received 2,913 cases from Southern and at this time the 3,000 case deal was in effect. (Exhibit 2). Crown was allowed the discount for 3,000 cases on this invoice. J. Willard Weiss, the Senior Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of Southern Wine and Spirits, makes many oral deals with the three or four chains large enough to buy in quantities of 3,000 or more cases at one time. When he offers such a deal to one of the large chains he calls the other chains capable of using the deal to make the same offer to them. He could have negotiated a 3,000 case deal with Crown in mid-March which would have been effective on the 18th of March. Southern has the capability of loading and delivering only 9,000 to 10,000 cases of whiskey per day. Crown submits orders on a weekly basis and Weiss remembered no occasion when Crown submitted two orders in one week. If the Crown order came in late in the day, or enough orders were ahead of Crown's that would have exceeded Southern's delivery capacity for the day, the computer would split the Crown order into two invoices. According to Weiss, this would account for the invoices on March 18 and 19 although the total cases involved in the two inventories were ordered by Crown on one order. This would make Crown's order exceed 3,000 cases and entitle them to the discount given. The invoices used to prepare Exhibits 1 and 3 show the amount of whiskey shipped not necessarily the amount ordered. Occasionally Southern is out of a particular brand or brands, and if the purchaser ordered enough cases to qualify for a deal, Southern would give credit for the cases ordered even though the invoices may show less cases shipped than would qualify for the deal. Stanley Kassal is President of Crown and does all of the ordering. His 25 stores submit a weekly inventory to him and on Monday he orders for each store. He is always trying to get better deals from wholesale suppliers and orders to meet the deal requirements, if possible. He never submits orders more than once per week. If one of the retail stores sells out of a particular brand it remains without that brand until the next weekly delivery. Kassal approves all advertising and sets all prices in the stores. Sometimes he advertises a particular brand at less than cost. His store managers do not know what has been ordered for their store until the shipment arrives. If the wholesaler was out of a brand that was ordered by Kassal the store manager would not know that the brand had been ordered.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents' alcoholic beverage licenses should be disciplined for violation of Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Resolution of this issue requires a determination of whether Respondents correctly reported and remitted alcoholic beverage surcharges required for the audit period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. Petitioner claims that Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., was deficient in reporting, surcharge payments, and penalties for the period July 1, 1990, through March 31, 1991, in the total amount of $4,121.80, contrary to Section 561.501, Florida Statutes. Similarly, Petitioner alleges that Respondent Central Restaurants, Inc., was deficient in reporting, surcharge payments, and penalties for the same period in the total amount of $96.72.
Findings Of Fact Respondents are two corporations. Southeast Central Inc., operating as the Pirate's Den Seafood Cafe, holds license number 26-03346 SRX, series 4-COP, for premises located at 5023 Central Restaurants, Inc., operating as the Seafood Place, holds license number 26 Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Domin is president, sole corporate officer and sole stockholder of both corporations. Petitioner's auditor performed audits with regard to records of both Respondents, following their random selection by Petitioner, to verify Respondents' compliance with surcharge requirements imposed by Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, on the retail sales of "on premise consumption" of alcoholic beverages on licensed premises. The audits covered the period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991, for both Respondents, and were performed during the period of early July through August 2, 1991. Alcoholic beverage licensees are afforded an opportunity to elect to report and pay the surcharge by either the purchase method or the sales method. Under the purchase method, a licensee pays the surcharge on alcoholic beverages purchased from authorized distributors. Under the sales method, licensees pay the surcharge on alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on the premises. Each Respondent submitted Petitioner's form DBR 44-005E, reflecting their election of the sales method. Form DBR 44-005E also requires disclosure of the licensee's inventory of alcoholic beverages on hand prior to opening of business on July 1, 1990. A licensee's reporting under the sales method is audited by the Sales Depletion Method. Under this methodology, a beginning inventory is ascertained. Second, purchases made by the licensee for the audit period are computed. Third, an ending inventory for the audit period is ascertained. Fourth, Gross Gallonage Available For Sale is computed by adding the beginning inventory to the purchases made during the audit period and then subtracting the ending inventory. Fifth, the Net Gallonage Available For Sale during the audit period is calculated by subtracting from the Gross Gallonage an allowance for spillage and a cooking adjustment. The end result is termed the Adjusted Sales Gallonage from which amount the amount of surcharge owed for the audit period is determined. Respondents' beginning inventory figures were provided by their employee, Heather Scrape. This finding is further supported by the identification of Scrape's handwriting on Respondents' exhibit number 2 at the final Hearing by Respondent's president as being that of Scrape. The figures written on the exhibit by Scrape correspond to figures earlier provided by Respondents to Petitioner on Form DBR 44-005E and corroborate testimony of Petitioner's auditor that Scrape provided Petitioner's audit personnel with beginning inventory information for Respondents. Scrape, no longer employed by Respondents, still lives and works in the area although she did not testify at the final hearing. Distributor invoices at each Respondent location were used to determine alcoholic beverage purchases by each Respondent for the audit period. The ending inventory for the audit period for each Respondent was provided to Petitioner's auditor by Respondents. The auditor considered a spillage allowance of 10 percent for draft beer and five percent for liquor, bottled or canned beer, wine coolers and wine. The spillage allowance is enunciated in Emergency Rule 7AER 90-5, effective July 1, 1990, and also codified in Rule 7A- 4.063, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents provided no documentation for cooking adjustment amounts. The audit for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., revealed a deficiency in surcharge reporting and payment of $3,294.15 with a late penalty due in the amount of $827.65. The audit for Respondent Central Restaurants, Inc., revealed a deficiency of $84.24 with a late penalty of $16.85 which, after adjustment for spillage allowance, totalled $96.72. At request of Respondents, Petitioner's auditor returned to the premises of each licensee and re-conducted the audit. No substantial corrections were made as a result of this effort with the minor exception of discovery of additional invoices on the premises of Respondent Southeast Central Inc., which increased, by a minor sum, the surcharge amount and penalty to the current amounts. The deficiency for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., represents 55 percent of the total surcharge due for the audit period. The deficiency for Respondent Central Restaurants represents 14 percent of the total surcharge due for the audit period. Petitioner's Form DBR 44-005S states that the surcharge is to be calculated on gallons and/or ounces by reporting licensees. A conversion calculation sheet is provided on the back of the form to assist retailers in converting alcoholic beverage measurements into gallons. Respondents' cash registers record the price and number of alcoholic beverages sold in terms of units, i.e., three glasses of beer, two bottles of beer, one glass of wine, etc. Respondents predetermined how many ounces of an alcoholic beverage should be in a particular drink. Respondents then used this ideal measurement or standard in calculating the surcharge due. The calculation involved multiplying the ideal standard or measurement by the units recorded through the cash registers as sold. There is no actual record made of the amount of alcoholic beverage in a unit sale. Sometime after August 2, 1991, Respondents provided Petitioner's auditor with a copy of a beginning July 1, 1990 inventory report for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., derived from application of the ideal measurement or standard as a multiplier of units of recorded sales. This action by Respondents followed completion of Petitioner's initial audits and notice to Respondents of delinquency in surcharge payment amounts. Respondents presented no explanation as to why this inventory was not provided to Petitioner's auditor in the course of her initial audit. The inventory document was also not authenticated in accordance with Section 90.901, Florida Statutes, and is not credited at this time for establishing a beginning inventory for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., at variance with the beginning inventory reported for this Respondent on Petitioner's form DBR 44-005E. Petitioner permits vendors a period of 30 days within which to remit delinquent surcharge payments following notice of delinquency. Neither Respondent complied with Petitioner's demands to remit delinquent surcharge payments discovered as the result of Petitioner's audit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring payment by Respondent in Case No. 93-0322 in the amount of $4,121,80, the amount of total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due; and requiring payment by Respondent in Case No. 93-0329 of the amount of $96.72, the amount of the total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due in that case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-0322 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Accepted, not verbatim. 6.-7. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 8.-13. Accepted, not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-7. Accepted, not verbatim. 8.-12. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Rejected, not relevant although this is a duty of the auditor. Accepted. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, no evidence presented as to theft or overpouring. Further, Respondents were given benefit of spillage allowance. 17.-18. Rejected, weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert Domin, President Southeast Central, Inc. Central Restaurants, Inc. 4359 Roosevelt Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Jack McCray General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 John Harris, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Max R. Jones owns a small family grocery at 2020 North Main Street in Kissimmee, Florida. He and his wife, Esther M. Jones, doing business as Jones Grocery and Meats at that address, are now and at all relevant periods have been licensed by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) for the sale of wine and beer under license number 59-00056 2APS. Besides beer and wine, the Jones' sell groceries, meats and delicatessen items. Mr. Jones and his wife run the business with the assistance of four or five employees. Sometime prior to December 16, 1988, DABT received an anonymous complaint that underage persons were purchasing alcoholic beverages at the Jones' licensed premises. On December 16, 1988, at approximately 2:55 p.m., DABT Investigators, Steven Green and Ellie Doyle, entered Jones Grocery and Meats with an underage operative, Michelle Haynes Newman. Ms. Newman, whose birthdate is March 7, 1970, was eighteen years old at the time. As instructed previously by Investigator Green, Ms. Newman took the money he gave her, went to the cooler and obtained a 6-pack of Miller draft beer. She proceeded to the checkout counter and paid for the beer. At no time did the clerk who sold her the beer ask her age or request any identification. Ms. Newman immediately gave the beer to one of the investigators who accompanied her out of the store. She had never been in the premises before and has not visited there since the December 16th occasion. Investigator Green interviewed the clerk, Lisa K. Dahlhauser, and informed her that she had sold alcoholic beverages to an underage person. He later informed Max Jones of the sale and violation. Consistent with the policy of the DABT, no administrative complaint was filed on this first offense. Lisa Dahlhauser had been working for Jones only one or two days. He had personally observed her checking identification during the day. She left her employment at Jones' grocery about four weeks after the incident. On February 20, 1989, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Investigator Green; another DABT Investigator, Mark Douglas; and an underage operative, Kris Ann VanShaick, approached Jones Grocery and Meats. Ms. VanShaick, now married and known as Kris Copeland, was born on March 30, 1970, and was eighteen years old at the time. The agents gave the operative their standard instructions: to use a correct driver's license; if asked, to present the license and to tell her correct age; and to receive, but not consume, the alcoholic beverage. Ms. VanShaick entered the store with Investigator Douglas. She obtained a single can of Coors Light beer and took it to the counter. The clerk, Irene Bower, asked for identification and she produced her driver's license, showing her correct birthdate. The clerk examined the license, took the money and sold her the beer. At the time of the December 16, 1988 sale, Max Jones was not near the counter and was unaware of the sale until he was informed by Investigator Green. On the second occasion he was near the cashier when Ms. VanShaick obtained the beer from the cooler. He thought she looked young and told the clerk to check her identification. He was going toward the back room of the store when the purchase was actually made. He heard the clerk ask for the identification and saw the young woman present it. The clerk was terminated at the end of the week. Max Jones counsels new employees regarding checking identification cards. He does not have a formal training program and has not taken advantage of the training offered by the DABT, but he has conveyed to his employees that he does not tolerate sales to minors. There is a card on the cash register with the date by which the customer must be born in order to purchase alcoholic beverages. Max Jones presumes that his employees can read and compute figures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Notice to Show Cause. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 9th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Addison E. Walker, Esquire 4313 Neptune Road St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
