The Issue There is little controversy as to the facts in this cause. The issue is essentially a legal issue and is stated as follows: When parties act in reliance and in conformity to a prior construction by an agency of a statute or rule, should the rights gained and positions taken by said parties be impaired by a different construction of said statute by the agency? Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders filed March 17 and 18, 1983. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based on the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Vanguard Investment Company, is a Florida corporation with its principal offices at 440 Northeast 92nd Street, Miami Shores, Florida 33138. On or about March 3, 1981, Vanguard purchased an aircraft described as a Turbo Commander, serial number N9RN, from Thunderbird Aviation, Inc., for a purchase price of $120,000 plus $4,800 in sales tax. The sale price plus the sales tax was paid by Vanguard to Thunderbird, which remitted the $4,800 in sales tax to the Department of Revenue (DOR) less a three percent discount as authorized by law. On February 27, 1981, Vanguard had executed a lease of said aircraft to General Development Corporation for a term of two years commencing on March 1, 1981, contingent upon Vanguard's purchase of said aircraft from Thunderbird. Prior to March 1, 1981, General Development had leased said aircraft from Thunderbird, and the least terminated on February 28, 1981. Vanguard purchased said aircraft for the sole purpose and in anticipation of continuing its lease to General Development. Vanguard never took possession or control of said aircraft, which remained in General Development's possession at Opa-locka Airport in Dade County, Florida. No controversy exists that all sales tax payable under General Development's lease of the aircraft, both with Thunderbird and subsequently with Vanguard, had been remitted to DOR with no break in continuity of the lease as a result of the change in ownership of the aircraft on or about March 1, 1981. At the time Vanguard purchased the aircraft from Thunderbird, Vanguard had not applied for or received a sales and use tax registration number pursuant to Rule 12A-1.38, Florida Administrative Code. Vanguard applied for said sales and use tax registration number on or about April 2, 1981, approximately 30 days after the purchase of said aircraft. The sales and use tax registration number was granted by DOR on or about April 23, 1981. Shortly thereafter, Vanguard inquired of DOR concerning a refund of the $4,800 in sales tax paid on the aircraft plus the three percent discount taken by Thunderbird. In lieu of Vanguard's providing Thunderbird a resale certificate and having Thunderbird apply for the sales tax refund, it was suggested that Vanguard obtain an assignment of rights from Thunderbird and apply directly for the refund because Thunderbird had been dissolved immediately after the sale of the aircraft to Vanguard. Acquisition of the assignment of rights from Thunderbird by Vanguard was delayed by the dissolution of Thunderbird and the death of Thunderbird's principal officer. Vanguard received the assignment of rights from Thunderbird on or about July 1, 1982, and immediately applied for a refund of the sales tax. Said application for refund was well within the three years permitted by Florida law to apply for a sales tax refund. On November 22, 1982, the Office of Comptroller (OOC) notified Vanguard of its intent to deny Vanguard's application for the sales tax refund because Vanguard had failed to obtain a sales and use tax registration number prior to purchasing the aircraft from Thunderbird. At the time of the purchase, it was the policy of DOR to permit individuals to apply late for a sales and use tax registration number and not to deny refunds on the basis that the applicant did not have the sales and use tax registration number at the time of the taxable purchase. On or about July 1, 1982, this policy of DOR was altered to conform with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in State Department of Revenue v. Robert N. Anderson, 403 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1981). Vanguard was aware of the DOR policy at the time of the sale, relied on that policy, and conformed to that policy. It was clearly stated that had Vanguard applied for its refund even a month earlier, in June of 1982, the refund would have been approved under the then-existing policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the application of Vanguard Investment Company for refund of sales tax be approved, and that said refund be paid by the Office of Comptroller. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 25th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Kaplan, Esquire 907 DuPont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 William G. Capko, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas L. Barnhart, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Office of Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 1986, American Aviation Resources, Inc., sold an airplane to Munur Yurtsever, a resident of Brazil. This aircraft was a Hansa jet model HFB-320 with U.S. registration number N71DL (the subject aircraft). On January 28, 1986, Mr. Yurtsever transferred title of the subject aircraft to Petitioner, Selcuk Yetimoglu. At the time of the transfer, the subject aircraft was in the State of Florida undergoing repairs. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Yetimoglu resided at 20530 Jacaranda Road, Cutler Ridge, Miami, Florida, in a residence owned by Mr. Yurtsever. The aircraft bill of sale dated January 28, 1986, reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu was the purchaser of the subject aircraft and that Mr. Yurtsever was the seller. The bill of sale recited that the consideration paid was $20.00 and other good and valuable consideration. While the bill of sale reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu resided in Miami, Florida, the bill of sale does not state that the sale occurred in the State of Florida. On January 29, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu applied to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the registration of the subject aircraft in his name. On March 13, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote to the FAA regarding the registration and stated, in pertinent part, as follows: Mr. Munur Yurtsever sold the aircraft to me on January 28, 1986, five days after he bought the aircraft from American Aviation Resources, Inc. when he found out that the government of Brazil did not give him a (sic) permission to import the aircraft and that he could not register the aircraft in the United States because he was not a citizen of the United States. By letter dated May 15, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu provided the FAA proof that the subject aircraft had not been registered in Brazil. Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner of the subject aircraft between January 28, 1986, and March 13, 1987. On March 13, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu sold the subject aircraft back to Mr. Yurtsever. The bill of sale identifies the purchaser as being: Munur Yurtsever Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. Av. Mal. Camara 160-GR. Rio de Janeiro - RJ Brazil On April 8, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote the FAA and stated, in pertinent part: ... I request cancelation of U.S. registra- tion for the aircraft ... because I sold the aircraft back to Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. ... On January 11, 1988, Respondent issued to Petitioner a "Notice of Delinquent Tax Penalty and Interest Due and Assessed" (Notice of Assessment) based on the transaction involving Mr. Yetimoglu, Mr. Yurtsever, and the subject aircraft. The Notice of Assessment contained the following statement: "This Department has information that you purchased the following aircraft. However, there is no evidence of payment of Florida Sales and/or Use Tax". The Notice of Assessment reflected that Respondent had, pursuant to Section 212.12(5)(b), Florida Statutes, estimated the value of the aircraft as being $320,000 and assessed the following taxes, interest, and penalties: Florida State Sales/Use Tax 5% $16,000.00 (Estimated) Per 212.06(8), F.S. Penalty 5% per month; Maximum 25% of 4,000.00 (25%) Tax Due Per Section 212.12(2), F.S. Additional Penalty 11,840.00 (50%) Per 212.12(2)(a), F.S. Interest = 1% per month from date of 3,680.00 (23%) Purchase To Date of Payment Per Section 212.12(3), F.S. Less Tax Paid ----------------- TOTAL DUE WITH THIS NOTICE $35,520.00 Respondent requested that Mr. Yetimoglu provide it information and documentation as to the value of the aircraft. Mr. Yetimoglu contends that he paid Mr. Yurtsever nothing for the aircraft, that the title was transferred to him and registered in the FAA in his name so that the aircraft could be test flown after it was repaired, and that Mr. Yurtsever had paid $100,000 for the aircraft. There was no evidence as to the sales price that Mr. Yetimoglu paid for the aircraft other than Mr. Yetimoglu's testimony. Respondent estimated that the reasonable value of the subject aircraft on January 28, 1986, was $320,000. This estimate was based on an appraisal prepared for Respondent and assumed that the aircraft was in a scrapped or junked condition. Respondent generally uses a standard reference work on the value of aircraft to assist it in estimating the value of the subject aircraft. Because of its age and model, the subject aircraft is no longer listed in this standard reference. In support of his contention that Mr. Yurtsever paid $100,000 for the aircraft, Mr. Yetimoglu provided Respondent with a copy of a wire transfer of funds from Mr. Yurtsever to American Aviation Resources, Inc. in the amount of $100,000. However, there was no documentation provided that established that the $100,000 constituted the entire purchase price paid by Mr. Yurtsever. The dispute between the parties as to the value of the aircraft is resolved by finding, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that the reasonable value of the aircraft at the times pertinent to this proceeding was $320,000.00. In December 1986, while Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner, the subject aircraft engaged in international flight between the Turks and Caicos Islands and the State of Florida. Respondent's Notice of Redetermination, dated February 26, 1990, upheld the Notice of Assessment on the basis that the underlying transaction was subject to use tax pursuant to Section 212.06(8), Florida Statutes. The issue to be resolved was framed by the Notice of Redetermination as being: "The only issue involved pertains to a use tax assessment upon an aircraft brought into this country". This determination was based, in part, upon a letter to Respondent from an attorney who was representing Mr. Yetimoglu at the time the letter was written. 1/ The letter implied that the aircraft was brought into Florida after the title was transferred to Mr. Yetimoglu, and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The transferor of the aircraft, Munur Yurtsever, is a nonresident alien. His inten- tion is to deliver the plane to a purchaser outside the country. Mr. Yurtsever advises that the F.A.A. will not allow the plane to be flown in this country unless it is owned by a U.S. resident. As it was imperative to fly the plane here in order to prepare it for its flight outside the country, Mr. Yurtsever transferred the plane to his partner, Selcuk Yetimoglu, who is a resident of the United States. ... At the formal hearing, Mr. Yetimoglu established that the aircraft was in Florida undergoing repairs at the time the title was transferred to him. Prior to and at the formal hearing, Respondent asserted the position that use taxes, interest, and penalties were due for this transaction. In its post- hearing submittal, Respondent, for the first time in this proceeding, contends that sales taxes, interest and penalties are due for this transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which withdraws the subject assessment. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of March, 1991.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 2nd day of April, 1976, the Respondent, Charter Distributing Company, licensed under the Cigarette Laws, did unlawfully attempt to evade or defeat the state tax by attempting to gain a cigarette tax rebate on unstamped cigarettes, contrary to s. 210.18(1), F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, Charter Distributing Company was licensed under License No. 26-106, CWD, with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On April 2, 1976, Mr. Jesse Bob Cooper, an Excise Auditor II, with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage went to the licensed premises at 975 Broad Street, Jacksonville, Florida to cancel certain cigarette imprints to enable the licensee to get a refund of cigarette taxes paid. Those cigarettes upon which the imprints were to be cancelled were cigarettes which were taken out of commercial circulation because they were stale. These cigarettes were part of a quantity of cigarettes which were being returned by manufacturers representatives of the various cigarette companies to Charter Distributing Company. The arrangement was to have the cigarette company representative bring the cigarettes into the warehouse area and stack those cigarettes in a "dump area" and receive credit for them. The amounts being brought in by the manufacturers representatives were from 30 to 250 cartons on each occasion. The president of the Respondent, William Moore, would then ask the manufacturers representative if the cigarettes had the appropriate stamps for cancellation. When he was prepared, he would contact the Petitioner's representative to come over and cancel the cigarettes for refund. On April 2, 1976, when Mr. Cooper arrived to cancel the Cigarettes, the cigarettes were placed on a table and examined for proper stamps. On that date, eleven (11) packs of cigarettes were discovered which had inappropriate stamps. Nine of those packs of cigarettes were meter stamped, that is, had meter imprints that were inappropriate. One pack of the eleven packs had the heat or Addco stamp and the final pack had a hand stamp. Although the latter two packs of cigarettes had the appropriate form of stamp, the cellophane wrapper around the pack had been taped there and the stamps were not correct for those two packs. The process was being conducted by having Mr. Moore cancel the packs of cigarettes that were being examined, while Mr. Cooper witnessed. There was no effort at concealing the inappropriate packages of cigarettes made on the part of Mr. Moore. The eleven packs of cigarettes had been brought in by some undisclosed manufacturer's representative and had not been discovered until the point of checking for tax refunds, which was the activity on April 2, 1976. The Respondent, after discovery of the inappropriate stamps had been made, did not make any further request for tax refund and has not received such refund. Finally, there was no showing that the Respondent had any knowledge of the impropriety of the stamps prior to the discovery on April 2, 1976 when these eleven packs and other cigarettes were being cancelled.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Charter Distributing Company, License No. 26-106, CWB, be released from further responsibility to answer to the Notice to Show Cause herein. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Collette, Esquire Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Stephen D. Busey, Esquire 500 Barnett Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact In Exhibit 3 Petitioner disputes the overpayment of sales tax, penalties and interest in the amount of $62,035.63. At the hearing it was stipulated that the disputed sum is $62,000.00. Petitioner is owner and publisher of a weekly paper, The Tampa/Metro Neighbor (Neighbor), published in Tampa and distributed in the Tampa metropolitan area of Hillsborough County. The Neighbor is distributed to readers free of charge. Petitioner started rack sales September 27, 1980, and has sold approximately 125 per week since that time. Its total circulation is approximately 164,000. The Neighbor has not been entered or qualified to be admitted and entered as second class mail matter at a post office in the county where it is published. The Neighbor is delivered by approximately one thousand carriers to residences and apartments in Hillsborough County each Thursday. The papers are placed in plastic bags to protect them from the weather. Petitioner claims sales tax exemption for the purchase of newsprint, ink, and plastic bags used to print and distribute the Neighbor. Newspapers such as The Tampa Tribune are exempt from sales tax on these items. The Neighbor is organized into seven departments. These are: editorial, retail advertising, classified advertising, accounting, circulation, production, and printing. The editorial staff provides all items in the paper other than advertising. The editorial/advertising mix of the Neighbor is approximately 25 percent-75 percent. No 12-month breakdown of these percentages was presented. The Neighbor defines editorial content as everything except paid advertising. Only newspapers and other periodical publications are eligible for mailing at second class rates of postage. Publications primarily designed for free circulation and/or circulation at nominal rates may not qualify for the general publications category (Exhibit 24). General publication primarily designed for advertising purposes may not qualify for second class privileges. Those not qualifying include those publications which contain more than 75 percent advertising in more than half of the issues published during any 12- month period (Exhibit 24). Second class mail privilege is a very valuable asset for newspapers and other qualifying publications. The editorial content of the Neighbor, as defined in Finding of Fact 7 above, is comprised of local news, sporting news, local investigative reporting, an opinions section, and an entertainment section. The advertising is split into classifieds and other. The Neighbor contains no national or international news, no wire service reports, no comics, no stock market reports, no sports statistics, no weather reports, no nationally syndicated columnists, no state capital news, no obituaries, no book review section, and no special section such as home designs, gardening, etc. Neighbor considers its primary competition to be The Tampa Tribune. However, this competition is limited to advertising, as the Neighbor has none of the traditional newspaper functions above noted which are normally carried in daily newspapers. Petitioner presented two expert witnesses who opined that the Neighbor met the requirements to be classified as a newspaper because it was published in newspaper format; that it had an editorial section which provided some news as contrasted to that provided in a shopping guide; that the 75 percent-25 percent advertising-editorial content did not make the Neighbor primarily an advertising paper; that the requirements of the U.S. Post Office for a periodical to obtain second class mail privileges is not relevant to a determination that the Neighbor is not a newspaper; that the requirements of the Department of Revenue Rule 12A-1.08(3)(d) and 12A-1.08(4), Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant in determining whether the Neighbor is a newspaper; and that in a journalistic concept the Neighbor is a newspaper. The Neighbor was purchased in 1979 by North American Publications, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Morris Communications Corporation. Morris Communications Corporation owns several newspapers scattered from Florida to Alaska, both daily and weekly publications. Most of these publications are sold to paid subscribers. Petitioner's testimony that sales tax was not collected from Petitioner's predecessor owner was flatly contradicted by the testimony of Respondent's witness. Since the latter witness is in a much better position to know the facts respecting sales taxes levied on the former owner of the Neighbor, this testimony is the more credible. In any event, Petitioner did not claim estoppel.
The Issue Whether the contested and unpaid portions of the tax, penalty and interest assessment issued against Petitioners as a result of Audit No. 9317210175 should be withdrawn as Petitioners have requested?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Shuckers is an oceanfront restaurant and lounge located at 9800 South Ocean Drive in Jensen Beach, Florida. In November of 1992, Petitioner Mesa's brother, Robert Woods, Jr., telephoned Mesa and asked her if she wanted a job as Shuckers' bookkeeper. Woods had been the owner of Shuckers since 1986 through his ownership and control of the corporate entities (initially Shuckers Oyster Bar Too of Jensen Beach, Florida, Inc., and then NAT, Inc.) that owned the business. Mesa needed a job. She therefore accepted her brother's offer of employment, notwithstanding that she had no previous experience or training as a bookkeeper. When Mesa reported for her first day of work on November 19, 1992, she learned that Woods expected her to be not only the bookkeeper, but the general manager of the business as well. Mesa agreed to perform these additional responsibilities. She managed the day-to-day activities of the business under the general direction and supervision of Woods. After a couple of weeks, Woods told Mesa that it would be best if she discharged her managerial responsibilities through an incorporated management company. Woods had his accountant draft the documents necessary to form such a corporation. Among these documents were the corporation's Articles of Incorporation. Mesa executed the Articles of Incorporation and, on December 3, 1992, filed them with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, thereby creating Petitioner TAN, Inc. TAN, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation provided as follows: The undersigned subscribers to these Articles of Incorporation, natural persons competent to contract, hereby form a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. ARTICLE I- CORPORATE NAME The name of the corporation is: TAN, INC. ARTICLE II- DURATION This corporation shall exist perpetually unless dissolved according to Florida law. ARTICLE III- PURPOSE The corporation is organized for the purpose of engaging in any activities or business permitted under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. ARTICLE IV- CAPITAL STOCK The corporation is authorized to issue One Thousand (1000) shares of One Dollar ($1.00) par value Common Stock, which shall be designated "Common Shares." Article V- INITIAL REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The principal office, if known, or the mailing address of this corporation is: TAN, INC. 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 The name and address of the Initial Registered Agent of the Corporation is: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VI- INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS This corporation shall have one (1) director initially. The number of directors may be either increased or diminished from time to time by the By-laws, but shall never be less than one (1). The names and addresses of the initial directors of the corporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VII- INCORPORATORS The names and addresses of the incorporators signing these Articles of Incorporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 On the same day it was incorporated, December 3, 1992, TAN, Inc., entered into the following lease agreement with the trust (of which Woods was the sole beneficiary) that owned the premises where Shuckers was located: I, Michael Blake, Trustee, hereby lease to Tan, Inc. the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida for the sum of $3,000.00 per month. This is a month to month lease with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee. Mesa signed the agreement in her capacity as TAN, Inc.'s President. She did so at Woods' direction and on his behalf. No lease payments were ever made under the agreement. 3/ The execution of the lease agreement had no impact upon Shuckers. Woods remained its owner and the person who maintained ultimate control over its operations. At no time did he relinquish any part of his ownership interest in the business to either Mesa or her management company, TAN, Inc. Mesa worked approximately 70 to 80 hours a week for her brother at Shuckers doing what he told her to do, in return for which she received a modest paycheck. Woods frequently subjected his sister to verbal abuse, but Mesa nonetheless continued working for him and following his directions because she needed the income the job provided. As part of her duties, Mesa maintained the business' financial records and paid its bills. She was also required to fill out, sign and submit to Respondent the business' monthly sales and use tax returns (hereinafter referred to as "DR- 15s"). She performed this task to the best of her ability without any intention to defraud or deceive Respondent regarding the business' tax liability. The DR-15s she prepared during the audit period bore NAT, Inc.'s Florida sales and use tax registration number. On the DR-15 for the month of December, 1992, Mesa signed her name on both the "dealer" and "preparer" signature lines. Other DR-15s were co-signed by Mesa and Woods. In April of 1993, Woods told Mesa that she needed to obtain a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., to use instead of NAT, Inc.'s registration number on Shuckers' DR-15s. In accordance with her brother's desires, Mesa, on or about May 14, 1993, filed an application for a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., which was subsequently granted. On the application form, Mesa indicated that TAN, Inc. was the "owner" of Shuckers and that the application was being filed because of a "change of ownership" of the business. In fact, TAN, Inc. was not the "owner" of the business and there had been no such "change of ownership." By letter dated June 22, 1993, addressed to "TAN INC d/b/a Shuckers," Respondent gave notice of its intention to audit the "books and records" of the business to determine if there had been any underpayment of sales and use taxes during the five year period commencing June 1, 1988, and ending May 31, 1993. The audit period was subsequently extended to cover the six year period from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1993. Relying in part on estimates because of the business' inadequate records, auditors discovered that there had been a substantial underpayment of sales and use taxes during the audit period. The auditors were provided with complete cash register tapes for only the following months of the audit period: June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993. A comparison of these tapes with the DR-15s submitted for June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993 revealed that there had been an underreporting of sales for these months. Using the information that they had obtained regarding the three pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they had complete cash register tapes (June, July and August of 1992), the auditors arrived at an estimate of the amount of sales that had been underreported for the pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they did not have complete cash register tapes. The auditors also determined that Shuckers' tee-shirt and souvenir sales, 4/ Sunday brunch sales, cigarette vending sales, vending/amusement machine location rentals 5/ and tiki bar sales that should have been included in the sales reported on the DR-15s submitted during the audit period were not included in these figures nor were these sales reflected on the cash register tapes that were examined. According of the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these unreported sales were determined as follows: TEE-SHIRT SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be $2,000/ month. No records were available and no tax remitted through May, 1993. SUNDAY BRUNCH SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be 100 customers per brunch per month (4.333 weeks). No audit trail to the sales journal was found and no records were available. CIGARETTE VENDING SALES: The estimate is based on a review of a sample of purchases for the 11 available weeks. The eleven weeks were averaged to determine monthly sales at $3/pack. VENDING MACHINE LOCATION RENTAL REVENUE: The revenue estimate is based on a review of a one month sample. TIKI BAR SALES: The sales estimate is based on a review of infrequent cash register tapes of February, 1993. The daily sales was determined by an average of the sample. The number of days of operation per month was determined by estimate. In addition, the auditors determined that TAN, Inc. had not paid any tax on the lease payments it was obligated to make under its lease agreement with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee, nor had any tax been paid on any of the pre-December, 1992, lease payments that had been made in connection with the business during the audit period. According to the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these lease payments were determined as follows: The estimate is based on 1990 1120 Corporate return deduction claimed. This return is on file in the Florida CIT computer database. The 1990 amount was extended through the 6/87 - 11/92 period. For the period 12/92 - 5/93 audit period, TAN's current lease agreement of $3,000/month was the basis. No documentation was produced during the audit supporting any the sales tax exemptions that the business had claimed during the audit period on its DR-15s. 6/ Accordingly, the auditors concluded that the sales reported as exempt on the business' DR-15s were in fact taxable. Using records of sales made on a date selected at random (February 1, 1993), the auditors calculated effective tax rates for the audit period. They then used these effective tax rates to determine the total amount of tax due. An initial determination was made that a total of $201,971.71 in taxes (not including penalties and interest) was due. The amount was subsequently lowered to $200,882.28. On or about December 22, 1993, TAN, Inc., entered into the following Termination of Lease Agreement with Ocean Enterprises, Inc.: TAN, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby consents to termination of that certain lease of the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 of ISLAND BEACH CLUB, located at 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida, dated December 3, 1992, acknowledges a landlord's lien on all assets for unpaid rent; and transfers and sets over and assigns possession of the aforesaid units and all of its right, title and interest in and to all inventory, equipment, stock and supplies located on said premises 7/ in full satisfaction of said unpaid rent; all of the foregoing effective as of this 22nd day of December, 1993. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing termin- ation of lease, OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby agrees to pay Linda Mesa, each month all of the net revenues of the operation of the bar and restaurant located on said premises, up to the sum of $15,000.00, for sales tax liability asserted against TAN, Inc. or Linda A. W. Mesa based upon possession or ownership of said premises or any of the assets located thereon, plus attorney's fees incurred in connection with defending or negotiating settlement of any such liability. Net revenue shall mean gross revenue, less operating expenses, includ- ing, but not limited to, rent, up to the amount of $5,000.00 per month, costs of goods sold, utilities, payroll and payroll expense and insurance. OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc. represents that it has entered into a lease of said premises for a term of five years commencing on or about December 22, 1993, pursuant to the terms and conditions of which OCEANFRONT [sic] ENTERPRISES, Inc. was granted the right to operate a restaurant and bar business on said premises. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., leases the property from Island Beach Enterprises, which obtained the property through foreclosure. TAN, Inc., has been administratively dissolved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the contested and unpaid portions of the assessment issued as a result of Audit No. 9317210175, as it relates to TAN, Inc., and Linda A. W. Mesa. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of June, 1995.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is liable to Respondent for fuel taxes, and, if so, whether Respondent's levy on Petitioner's bank deposits is warranted and proper.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was at all times relevant to this proceeding an active corporation in the State of Florida. Petitioner operated as a motor fuel dealer from its inception in 1984, but in 1996, its application for licensure as a motor fuel dealer was not renewed by Respondent due to the existence of fuel tax delinquencies. Respondent is the state agency responsible for collecting taxes paid by motor fuel dealers. On July 3, 1996, Respondent issued a Notice of Final Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $74,423.25; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On July 3, 1996, Respondent issued another Notice of Final Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $12,625.64; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On July 3, 1996, Respondent issued another Notice of Final Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $15,245.84; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On June 28, 1996, Respondent issued a Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $90,317.87; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On June 28, 1996, Respondent issued another Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $57,864.24; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On November 27, 1996, Respondent issued a Notice of Final Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $81,094.54; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. Another Warrant was filed in the Pasco County Clerk's Office on May 24, 1996, reflecting delinquent taxes, penalties, and interest owed Respondent due to failure of an electronic transfer by Petitioner because of insufficient funds. The amount of that Warrant was $9,918.92. (A filing fee of $32.00 was assessed for each of the filed Warrants.) The time for challenging the assessments set forth in the notices and Warrants has passed. No credible evidence was presented at final hearing to suggest the assessed amounts were incorrect. Petitioner made some payments on the assessed amounts from time to time. Payments were applied to the outstanding balance in accordance with governing statutes: Filing fees, then accrued interest, then penalties, and then the tax liabilities. After applying the payments and taking into account accruing interest, Petitioner owes Respondent $377,074.29 as of the date of the final hearing. On September 13, 1996, Petitioner wrote a letter to Respondent asking that all penalties and interest on the outstanding balance be waived. The basis of the request was that only one officer of the corporation had actual knowledge of the unpaid fuel taxes. Once the other two officers were made aware, they immediately paid the current taxes and discontinued operation of the business. All assets of the business were sold, and the proceeds provided to Respondent to apply against the outstanding balance. Some revenue was being held by the corporation to provide for orderly termination of the business and upkeep of the real property owned by the corporation. Respondent denied Petitioner's request for compromise of the outstanding debt by letter dated December 19, 1996. Respondent requested from Petitioner evidence that Petitioner had exercised "ordinary care and prudence" in complying with state revenue laws. No evidence of a response by Petitioner was identified at final hearing. On August 27, 2009, Respondent, in recognition that the Warrants would expire after a period of time, notified Petitioner of the need to satisfy all the Warrants immediately. Upon Petitioner's failure to pay, Respondent issued a Notice of Freeze on October 8, 2009, to Synovus Bank where Petitioner's funds were being held. At that time there was $52,990.21 being held by the bank for Petitioner. On November 3, 2009, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Levy, advising Petitioner of its intent to seize the money being held at Synovus Bank. Petitioner timely filed a contest to the Notice of Intent to Levy. Respondent notified Synovus Bank of the contest. Petitioner was formed by three individuals: Earl Radcliff, president; Robert Spence; and R. Michal Marston. Spence and Marston were merely investors; Radcliff operated and controlled the business. Neither Spence, nor Marston was involved in the payment of fuel taxes during the period the business was operating. That duty was left entirely up to Radcliff. Upon Radcliff's failure to pay the taxes that were due, Respondent began issuing notices. Finally, in 1996, Respondent refused to renew Petitioner's motor fuel dealer's license, effectively terminating the business. Spence and Marston were not immediately made aware of this fact, but upon learning that the license had not been renewed, they began attempting to make the appropriate tax payments. When it became obvious there was not enough money available to pay the tax liabilities, Spence began taking steps to protect the real estate owned by Petitioner so that it could be sold to meet the tax liabilities. The funds held by Synovus Bank are being used solely to protect the existing real property. Neither Spence, nor Marston, was ever repaid for their initial investment to the corporation. The real property has not been sold due to many reasons, including the downturn in the economy, the existence of environmental problems on the site, and general deterioration of the property. The property is in two parcels: one is an empty lot and the other is being used as an automobile dealership.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Revenue, upholding the Notice of Intent to Levy issued by Respondent as to property owned by Petitioner, Fuel Mart, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 28th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Echeverri, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Robert Spence Fuel Mart, Inc. 250 North Belcher Road, No. 100 Clearwater, Florida 33765-2622
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the administrative action and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The offense At all times pertinent hereto, respondent, Rodi Enterprises Corporation d/b/a La Ferrolana Supermarket, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-00094, series 2-APS, for the premises located at 3380 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida. Rolando Nunez is an owner and president of the licensee. On July 22, 1994, Leonard Del Monte, an investigator employed by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, entered the licensed premises to conduct a routine inspection. At that time, Inspector Del Monte discovered nine packages of Benson & Hedges Menthol 100's cigarettes in a display rack over the counter, each of which bore a fraudulent tax indicia and on which the excise tax had not been paid as required by law. Each cigarette package contained twenty individual cigarettes, and such packages, considering their location, were obviously offered for sale to the general public. Apart from the nine packages of untaxed Benson & Hedges Menthol 100's, Inspector Del Monte discovered no other untaxed cigarettes on the premises, which, at the time, contained approximately 300 other packages of cigarettes, as well as approximately 300 cartons of cigarettes, for sale to the general public. Indeed, this is the first occasion in over fifteen years of operation that respondent has ever been cited with a violation, and the first time Inspector Del Monte has ever discovered a violation in the fourteen or fifteen years he has been inspecting the premises. The reason for the offense Ovilio Reyes is a long-time customer of respondent, and purchased a carton of Benson & Hedges Menthol 100's from a vendor who sells, among other things, cigarettes from a lunch truck outside the factory where he works. Since he did not like the menthol taste, Mr. Reyes prevailed upon Mr. Nunez, an owner and president of petitioner, to exchange the nine packages that remained from the carton he had purchased for nine packages of Winston cigarettes. Mr. Nunez noted the stamp on the bottom of the packages, assumed it was valid, and agreed to the exchange. Thereafter, Mr. Nunez placed the packages in the display rack for resale. Having considered the proof, Mr. Nunez' testimony that he believed the packages to carry an appropriate stamp and that he had no intention of selling untaxed cigarettes is credited. Indeed, had Mr. Nunez thought the stamp was a forgery, it is doubtful that he would have placed them in the display rack so that the stamp was plainly visible to a customer or, in this case, an inspector standing at the counter. Moreover, for the untrained, a cursory glance at the stamp would not raise a suspicion as to its validity. It is only when one is apprised, as through the proof in this case, that a tax indicia must be stamped in purple ink as opposed to the black ink used on the subject packages, that the stamp was not affixed evenly on the bottom of each package as it should be, that the stamps used are slightly longer than the standard stamp, that the scallops or ornamental edge around the rectangular stamp did not match the scallop of a valid indicia, and that the subject packages, upon close inspection, contained the phrase "Tax No," as opposed to the proper phrase "Tax Paid," that one would have cause to suspect the legitimacy of the stamp in question. Notable, petitioner has not shown by rule or otherwise that it has advised its licensees in general or respondent in particular of the factors that should be considered in assessing the authenticity of a tax indicia.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the offense as charged, and directing respondent to pay a $50.00 civil penalty and the excise tax of $3.59. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of January 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 January 1995.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations set forth in the Department's Administrative Action dated January 21, 1999, are correct.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent DePaul, Inc. operated the Copper Penny Pub, 10553 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida (the "licensed premises"). The Respondent held license number 37-00584, Series COP4. In or before September 1998, the Petitioner selected the Respondent for audit based on the Respondent's failure to file required monthly sales reports. By letter dated September 2, 1998, the Petitioner notified the Respondent of the audit. According to the letter, the audit would occur on September 24, 1998, at the licensed premises. The letter stated that the following items would be reviewed: All alcoholic beverage purchase invoices. Petty cash records. Business checkbooks or check stubs. Records of alcoholic beverages used in cooking (if any). Any worksheets you might use to prepare the report. The enclosed Pre-Audit Questionnaire completely filled out. The Pre-Audit Questionnaire allows a licensee to identify package sales. Package sales are those in which alcoholic beverages are sold in the original sealed containers for consumption off the licensed premises. A COP4 series licensee can sell packaged alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises. Package alcohol sales are deducted from total sales during the audit, and are not included in the surcharge tax liability. The Pre-Audit Questionnaire directs the licensee to identify documents that will be used to support the package sales deduction. The Respondent did not complete or submit the Pre-Audit Questionnaire. A licensee must establish entitlement to a package sales deduction. Generally a licensee is required to maintain a log of package purchases, and support the logged transactions with daily cash register tapes, identified as "Z" tapes. The Respondent produced no package sales records to the Petitioner during the audit. Even though the Respondent did not provide records supporting a package sales deduction, the auditor allowed a two-percent credit for package sales. There are two audit methodologies used in conducting the tax audit, the "sales" method, and the "purchase" method. The choice of audit methodology is left to the licensee. The Respondent selected the purchase method audit. In a purchase method audit, the licensee is required to pay surcharge taxes based on the gallons of alcoholic beverages purchased monthly. Division Tax Auditor Maggie Herrera conducted the audit. According to Ms. Herrera, the licensed premises is a bar located in a strip shopping center. The "package store" is located outside and about thirty feet away from the bar. The "package store" is about the size of a one-car garage. In order to make a package sale, the bartender must leave the bar, walk to the package store, unlock it, retrieve the packaged goods, re-lock the door, and return to the bar. According to Ms. Herrera, the package store contained one-liter bottles of liquor on shelves with prices marked with masking tape on the bottles. The store also contained two cases of "hip flask" 375-ml size bottles, one case of 50-ml bottles, "a lot" of brandy and dust-covered bottles of mixers. During the several hours Ms. Herrera's was present at the licensed premises, only one package sale (a flask size bottle) was made. Ms. Herrera traveled to the licensed premises on two occasions to meet the Respondent. On the date of the first scheduled meeting, the Respondent did not appear. On the date of the second scheduled meeting, the Respondent presented approximately thirty distributor invoices to Ms. Herrera and told her he was leaving for his home to retrieve the remainder of the records. He left the licensed premises. She waited for several hours. The Respondent did not return and did not contact Ms. Herrera to explain his failure to return. Ms. Herrera preformed an audit of the Respondent, using standard audit procedures. Ms. Herrera utilized monthly surcharge reports filed by the Respondent for the period between January 1995 and December 1997, the distributor sales records for the Respondent's purchases, and records of tax payments made by the Respondent. According the audit, the Respondent owes remaining tax surcharge payments of $47,695.85, a penalty of $17,545.74 and interest of $5,514.60, for a total liability of $70,756.19. There is no evidence that the audit was done inappropriately, or that the audited tax liability is incorrect. The Respondent was notified of the tax liability by certified letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Responsibility, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order imposing a total liability of $70,756.19, including unpaid tax liability, penalties, and interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William T. Charnock, President 10154 Dunkirk Road Spring Hill, Florida 34608 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is liable for certain taxes and, if so, how much.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Manatee County, Florida. Petitioner is in the printing business. Specifically, Petitioner produces, manufactures, assembles, and publishes telephone directories for mobile home parks in Florida. All of Petitioner's work in connection with these directories takes place in Florida. The directories list the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of residents of the mobile home park for which the directory is prepared. The directories also contain advertisements, which Petitioner solicits from merchants seeking to sell goods or services to the mobile home park residents. Following the production of the directories, Petitioner distributes them to the mobile home park residents, who maintain possession of the directories. However, Petitioner retains ownership of each directory, even after it is distributed. Petitioner is solely responsible for the manufacture and distribution of the directories. Petitioner owns accounts receivable reflecting monies owned it by entities for which Petitioner has performed work. Petitioner owns treasury stock. Following an audit, Respondent issued its Intent to Make Sales and Use Tax Audit Changes. The proposed changes assessed additional sales and use taxes of $44,151.77, intangible tax of $1297.08, and $194,75 of health care tax. The bases of proposed liability for the sales and use tax were for the publication and distribution of directories for which no sales or use tax had been collected and for the sale of advertising during the period of the service tax from July 1, 1986, through December 31, 1986, for which no sales tax on advertising had been collected. The basis of proposed liability for the intangible tax was for the failure to pay intangible tax on accounts receivable and treasury stock. The basis of proposed liability for the health care tax was for the failure to pay the Hillsborough County Health Care Tax and Discretionary Sales Surtax. On February 11, 1991, Petitioner protested the proposed assessments. On April 24, 1992, Respondent issued its Notice of Decision sustaining the proposed sales and use tax and intangible tax, but eliminating the proposed health care tax. On May 12, 1992, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration concerning the proposed sales and use tax. On November 24, 1992, Respondent issued its Notice of Reconsideration sustaining the proposed sales and use tax. On January 21, 1993, Petitioner timely filed its petition for a formal administration hearing. Subject to the accuracy of its legal position, Respondent's assessment is factually accurate. Petitioner will pay the assessed amount of sales and use tax, plus interest, if its position is not sustained following the conclusion of this proceeding, including judicial review.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered determining that, for each assessed period, Petitioner is liable for the assessed corporate intangible tax plus interest, the use tax on the cost price of the materials and other covered items plus interest, the sales tax on services on the advertising revenues, but not for any sales tax apart from the period covered by the sales tax on services. ENTERED on January 25, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 25, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Carr David Michael Carr, P.A. 600 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Eric J. Taylor Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether or not Sohio, a subsidiary of BP Oil Company, Inc., is liable for the payment of certain local option gas taxes to the Department of Revenue under the facts of this case.
Findings Of Fact This cause was initiated by the Petition for Formal Hearing filed with the Department of Revenue on or about February 2, 1989. This petition was in response to the Department's assessment of February 29, 1988. During the period from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1987, Petitioner Sohio made sales of gasoline to various customers including 290,698 gallons of gasoline to Enos Ying (Ying), and 634,555 gallons of gasoline to Basil Roberts (Roberts). Petitioner's sales to Ying and to Roberts occurred at their respective places of business in Broward County, Florida, which imposed a six cent per gallon local option gas tax, pursuant to Chapter 336, F.S. during 1986 and 1987. At all times material, Petitioner was licensed in the State of Florida as a "refiner". Petitioner collected motor fuel tax under Chapter 206, F.S., but did not collect or remit local option gasoline tax under Chapter 336, F.S., with regard to its sale of gasoline to Ying and to Roberts. Petitioner did not obtain resale certificates or affidavits from Ying or Roberts covering its sales to them. On November 1, 1985, the Department of Revenue published an "Important Notice to all Retail Gasoline Dealers" which stated that: Effective January 1, 1986, Sections 336.021 and 336.025, Florida Statutes, requires (sic) the Retail Gasoline Dealer to collect and remit the local option gas tax and the voted gas tax on the sale of motor or special fuel at the retail level within a county which imposes one of the above taxes. On January 17, 1986, the Department of Revenue issued an "Important Notice to Motor Fuel Wholesalers, Importers or Distributors Concerning 1986 Licenses" and a list of retail service stations licensed for 1986 as of January 10, 1986, which notice stated: Those accounts that are unlicensed in 1986 will be receiving notification concerning their account and should secure their licenses immediately in order to prevent further complications, On the reverse side of the aforesaid notice, it was stated, Those accounts that are licensed in 1986 are responsible for remitting the local option gas taxes under Chapter 336, Florida Statutes. If you sell to an unlicensed retail dealer, the wholesaler, importer or refiner is responsible for collecting and remitting the local option taxes due under Chapter 336, Florida Statutes. Evidence should be obtained from the retail dealers as to his (sic) current status with the Department prior to selling to the account on a tax-free (Chapter 336, F.S.) basis. No rules or regulations of the Respondent Department under Chapter 336, F.S. or which make specific reference to Chapter 336, F.S. were promulgated by the Department during the period in question. On February 29, 1988, the Respondent issued a notice of delinquent local option gas tax, penalty and interest due and assessed against Petitioner in the amount of $1,302,545.13 (tax of $956,420.65, penalty of $229,806.11 and interest of $116,318.37) regarding sales made by the Petitioner to its customers including Ying and Roberts. A schedule describing the items forming the basis of the assessment was enclosed therewith, which schedule described the transaction subject to the assessment as being sales made to unlicensed retail dealers. The Respondent has never pursued collection of the tax, penalty and interest at issue from either Ying or Roberts. Petitioner did not know or have reason to know whether or not Ying or Roberts had paid the tax in question. On March 17, 1988, Petitioner filed a protest with the office of the General Counsel of the Florida Department of Revenue objecting to the entire assessment on the grounds Petitioner was not liable for the local option tax in regard to the subject transactions and in the alternative, that the retail dealers involved were either listed by the Department of Revenue as being licensed or had filed returns and previously paid their tax. By letter dated April 5, 1988, Petitioner was informed by Christine F. McCann, Special Programs Analyst, Bureau of Enforcement of the Florida Department Revenue, that the above referenced assessment had been revised downward to reflect the liability of $253,260.11 (tax of $182,813.42, penalty of $45,370.91, and interest of $25,075.78) on the grounds that the Petitioner had identified certain dealers as being licensed by the Department, who were part of a transaction for which the Respondent sought to tax Petitioner. As a result of an informal conference held on May 27, 1988, a Notice of Reconsideration was issued on December 7, 1988 which further reduced the assessment against Petitioner to a total of $80,463.39 (tax of $57,769.38, interest of $8,251.61 and penalty of $14,442.40) on the grounds that the Petitioner either identified additional dealers as being licensed by the Department or demonstrated that the retail dealers though not licensed by the Department, had paid the tax in question in regard to the subject transactions. The assessment as revised by the Department's Notice of Reconsideration continues to be in error in that it yet includes certain retail dealers although not licensed and other than Ying and Roberts, who have already paid the tax in question and therefore the assessment should be revised downward further. After the above-referenced adjustment, there remains and is now in controversy in this case the following amounts: SALES TO YING SALES TO ROBERTS Tax $17,436.48 Tax $38,073.30 Penalty 4,359.13 Penalty 9,518.37 Interest to Interest to 4/20/89 4,073.15 4/20/89 9,679.30 TOTAL $25,868.76 $57,270.97 GRAND TOTAL $83,139.73 as of 4/20/89. Should the Respondent prevail in this matter, interest will continue to accrue until the tax is paid. During the course of the informal protest procedures before the Department of Revenue, Petitioner established that all the sales which were the subject of the original notice, except those to Ying and to Roberts, were either to licensed gasoline retailers or to unlicensed gasoline retailers who had collected and remitted the local option tax due. Upon the testimony of Charles (Chuck) M. Reed Jr., Retail Marketer, who has been a dealer lease and supply agent for Ying and for Roberts from Gulf BP, parent corporation of Petitioner Sohio, it is found that Sohio's customary sales both to Ying and to Roberts were made exclusively by filling underground gasoline tanks at the respective establishments of Ying and of Roberts on delivery by the truckload of no less than 7,100 gallons and no more than 8,402 gallons at a time. Also upon the basis of his testimony and the photographs he took which were admitted in evidence, it is found that Ying and Roberts made retail sales to the general motoring public. More specifically, signs posting product affiliation and prices [see Section 206.01 (7) F.S.] which were observed by Mr. Reed identified each of these establishments as retail outlets. The sales agreements between Petitioner and Ying and between Petitioner and Roberts are also clearly in support of this finding. It is also proper to infer from Mr. Reed's testimony that he watched a majority of the gasoline gallons sold to Roberts and to Ying pumped into their respective underground tanks and then observed them pumping gasoline out of those tanks into motorists' cars via the traditional hose arrangements found in commercial gasoline stations, that it was the same Sohio gasoline which was pumped and sold by Ying and Roberts at retail. It was not necessary for Mr. Reed to physically observe the gasoline coursing through the hoses or account specifically day by day from delivery in bulk by Sohio to dispensation one car gasoline tank at a time by Ying and by Roberts in light of the exclusivity clauses of their contracts with Sohio. Therefore, Sohio established that the gasoline it sold to Ying and to Roberts was resold by Ying and by Roberts to the general motoring public. Ying and Roberts therefore fall in the category of being gasoline retailers unlicensed by the Department of Revenue, of whom it is undetermined whether they submitted their county local option gas tax due and from whom Petitioner Sohio, licensed as a refiner, did not obtain resale certificates or affidavits covering Sohio's sales to them. Petitioner did not establish that Ying and Roberts had collected and remitted the local option gasoline tax in controversy. There is no statute or rule which precludes Petitioner selling to an unlicensed dealer. Respondent Department of Revenue requested that Petitioner Sohio provide information which would indicate whether Ying and Roberts had collected and remitted the local option gasoline tax. Since all of the revisions and reductions of the original assessment against Petitioner as set out above were done by the Respondent based on information supplied by the Petitioner, the Respondent anticipated that Petitioner also would be able to provide information on Ying and Roberts. Respondent could have searched its records to find out if Ying and Roberts had paid their tax, and then gone directly to Ying and Roberts to find out why they did not pay the tax, if that were the case. However, due to the agency's search system which is geared to retailer license numbers, Department of Revenue employees asserted that such a search is probably impossible and certainly is impractical. All retail gasoline dealers are required to be licensed in order to sell gasoline. Accordingly, income tax forms are mailed by the agency only to those retail dealers who have obtained a license, despite the assertion in the agency's Notice described in Finding of Fact 8 that unlicensed retailers who had paid their tax without such a number/license were traceable. The problem appears to be that Petitioner sold to persons (unlicensed retailers Ying and Roberts) who had no vehicles (respective retail license numbers) by which to submit the local option gas tax. Instead of pursuing Ying and Roberts for payment of the county local option gas tax, the agency chose to come back against Petitioner for either the certificates or affidavits specifically required with regard to collection and remittance of the state motor fuel tax under Section 206.425 F.S., or for other proof of Roberts' and Ying's compliance concerning the county local option gas tax. According to Mr. Zych, Administrator of the Disposition Section of the Office of the General Counsel and superior to Ms. McCann, the agency would have accepted properly executed retail certificates if Petitioner had gotten them. Without such proof forthcoming from Petitioner, the agency held Petitioner liable for the local option gas tax imposed by the statute upon the retailer. So far as Ms. McCann, Respondent's Special Program Analyst, was concerned, this election to proceed against Sohio was completely in the discretion of her superior. There is no rule that requires Petitioner to get an exemption certificate or affidavit before they sell to a retail dealer.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order rescinding its Notice of Assessment against Petitioner with regard to its sales to Ying and Roberts and letting Petitioner go hence without ay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0638 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner' s PFOF: All of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted, but those not adopted have not been adopted because they are unnecessary, subordinate to the facts as found or mere legal argument. Respondent ` s PFOF: 1.-6. Accepted. 7. Accepted as modified to conform to the record and the natural inferences of the evidence of record. 8.-11. Accepted but not necessarily adopted as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 12. Accepted. 13.-15. Accepted but not necessarily adopted as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence and the natural logical inferences there from. Accepted but not adopted because not dispositive of any material issue of fact in dispute in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Taylor, Esquire Excise Tax Analyst Ira L Smith, Esquire Director, Ad Volorem Tax Division BP America, Inc. 200 Public Square 38-3600-L Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2375 Lealand McCharen Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 William D. Townsend General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Katie D. Tucker Executive Director 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
