The Issue This issue is whether proposed amendments to Rules 12A-1.094(1) and 12A-1.094(4), Florida Administrative Code, constitute a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Florida Home Builders Association, Inc. (FHBA), and Florida A.G.C. Council (FAGC) are trade associations. A substantial number of their members contract with governmental entities for construction services and related sales of tangible personal property. FHBA and FAGC were organized, in part, to represent their members on matters relating to the construction industry, including proceedings involving agency rules. Petitioner Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (Wackenhut) frequently contracts with governmental entities. The proposed rule amendments will result in greater tax liability for Wackenhut in its performance of governmental contracts. Intervenor Florida School Board Association, Inc. (FSBA) represents all 67 local school boards in the State of Florida. FSBA's purpose is to represent its members before governmental agencies, in part to ensure cost containment in the construction, maintenance, and improvement of school facilities. Petitioners and Intervenor will be substantially affected if Respondent adopts the proposed rule amendments. They all have standing in this case. Section 212.05, Florida Statutes, imposes a tax on "retail sales" or "sales at retail." The statute also imposes a companion "use tax" when a retail sale does not occur in this state but the items sold are used here. Section 212.02(14), Florida Statutes, defines "retail sale" or "sale at retail" as a "sale to a consumer or to any person for any purpose other than resale in the form of tangible personal property." Section 212.02(20), Florida Statutes, defines "use" as the "exercise of any right or power over tangible personal property incident to ownership thereof, or interest therein, except it does not include the sale at retail of that property in the regular course of business." Therefore, when tangible personal property is purchased and resold while still tangible personal property, the individual or company that resells the property is a dealer and has an obligation to collect, but not to pay, sales tax. See Sections 212.06(2) and 212.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The obligation to pay the tax rests on the final purchaser of the items while they are still tangible personal property. Section 212.08(6), Florida Statutes, creates a sales tax exemption for direct sales to governmental entities. The statute also creates an exception to that exemption for sales to contractors who purchase or manufacture items for the purpose of installing them in a governmental project. At one time, governmental contractors benefited from the same sales tax exemption that governmental entities enjoyed, even when the contractor was the ultimate consumer. Section 212.08(7), Florida Statutes (1957), stated as follows in relevant part: (7) EXEMPTIONS; POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.--There shall also be exempt from the tax imposed by this chapter sales made to the United States government, the state or any county, municipality or political subdivision of this state, including sales of tangible personal property made to contractors employed by any such government or political subdivision thereof where such tangible personal property goes into and becomes a part of public works owned by such government or political subdivision thereof. (Emphasis added) Chapter 59-402, Section 2, Laws of Florida, amended this provision by deleting the word "including" and substituting "provided, this exemption shall not include." Section 212.08(6), Florida Statutes (1991), provided as follows in relevant part: (6) EXEMPTIONS; POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.-- There are also exempt from the tax imposed by this chapter sales made to the United States Government, a state, or any county, municipality, or political subdivision of a state when payment is made directly to the dealer by the governmental entity. This exemption shall not inure to any transaction otherwise taxable under this chapter when payment is made by a government employee by any means, including, but not limited to, cash, check, or credit card when that employee is subsequently reimbursed by the governmental entity. This exemption does not include sales of tangible personal property made to contractors employed either directly or as agents of any such government or political subdivision thereof when such tangible personal property goes into or becomes a part of public works owned by such government or political subdivision thereof, except public works in progress or for which bonds or revenue certificates have been validated on or before August 1, 1959. Rule 12A-1.094, Florida Administrative Code, which implements Section 212.08(6), Florida Statutes, was last amended on August 10, 1992. The existing rule currently provides, as follows, in relevant part: 12A-1.094 Public Works Contracts. This rule shall govern the taxability of transactions in which contractors manufacture or purchase supplies and materials for use in public works, as that term is referred to in Section 212.08(6), This rule shall not apply to non- public works contracts as those contracts are governed under the provisions of Rule 12A-1.051, F.A.C. . . . In applying this rule, the following definitions are used. "Contractor" is one who is engaged in the repair, alteration, improvement or construction of real property. Contractors include, but are not limited to, persons engaged in building, electrical, plumbing, heating, painting, decorating, ventilating, paperhanging, sheet metal, roofing, bridge, road, waterworks, landscape, pier or billboard work. This definition includes subcontractors. "Public works" are defined as construction projects for public use or enjoyment, financed and owned by the government, in which private persons undertake the obligation to do a specific piece of work. The term "public works" is not restricted to the repair, alteration, improvement, or construction of real property and fixed works where the sale of tangible personal property is made to or by contractors involved in public works contracts. Such contracts shall include, but not be limited to, building, electrical, plumbing, heating, painting, decorating, ventilating, paperhanging, sheet metal, roofing, bridge, road, waterworks, landscape, pier or billboard contracts. "Real property" within the meaning of this rule includes all fixtures and improvements to real property. The status of a project as an improvement or affixture to real property is determined by the objective and presumed intent of the parties, based on the nature and use of the project and the degree of affixation to realty. Mobile homes and other mobile buildings are deemed fixtures if they (1) bear RP license tags, or (2) have the mobile features (such as wheels and/or axles) removed, and are placed on blocks or footings and permanently secured with anchors, tie-down straps or similar devices. * * * (4) The exemption in subsection (3)(a) is a general exemption for sales made to the government. The exception in subsection (2)(a) is a specific exception for sales to contractors. A determination of whether a particular transaction is properly characterized as an exempt sale to a government entity or a taxable sale to a contractor shall be based on the substance of the transaction, rather than the form in which the transaction is cast. The Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee in the responsible program will determine whether the substance of a particular transaction is governed by subsection (2)(a) or is a sale to a governmental body as provided by subsection (3) of this rule based on all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction as a whole. The Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee in the responsible program will give special consideration to factors which govern the status of the tangible personal property prior to its affixation to real property. Such factors include provisions which govern bidding, indemnification, inspection, acceptance, delivery, payment, storage, and assumption of the risk of damage or loss for the tangible personal property prior to its affixation to real property. Assumption of the risk of damage or loss is a paramount consideration. A party may be deemed to have assumed the risk of loss if the party either: bears the economic burden of posting a bond or obtaining insurance covering damage or loss; or enjoys the economic benefit of the proceeds of such bond or insurance. Other factors that may be considered by the Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee in the responsible program include whether: the contractor is authorized to make purchases in its own name; the contractor is jointly or severally liable to the vendor for payment: purchases are not subject to prior approval by the government; vendors are not informed that the government is the only party with an independent interest in the purchase; and whether the contractors are formally denominated as purchasing agents for the government. Sales made pursuant to so called "cost-plus", "fixed-fee", "lump sum", and "guaranteed price" contracts are taxable sales to the contractor unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee in the responsible program that such sales are, in substance, tax exempt sales to the government. Section 212.08(6), Florida Statutes, was last amended by Chapter 98-144, Laws of Florida. The statute currently states, as follows, in pertinent part: (6) EXEMPTIONS; POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.-- There are also exempt from the tax imposed by this chapter sales made to the United States Government, a state, or any county, municipality, or political subdivision of a state when payment is made directly to the dealer by the governmental entity. This exemption shall not inure to any transaction otherwise taxable under this chapter when payment is made by a government employee by any means, including, but not limited to, cash, check, or credit card when that employee is subsequently reimbursed by the governmental entity. This exemption does not include sales of tangible personal property made to contractors employed either directly or as agents of any such government or political subdivision thereof when such tangible personal property goes into or becomes a part of public works owned by such government or political subdivision. A determination whether a particular transaction is properly characterized as an exempt sale to a government entity or a taxable sale to a contractor shall be based on the substance of the transaction rather than the form in which the transaction is cast. The department shall adopt rules that give special consideration to factors that govern the status of the tangible personal property before its affixation to real property. In developing these rules, assumption of the risk of damage or loss is of paramount consideration in the determination. Chapter 98-144, Laws of Florida, was the result of Respondent's "map-tracking" exercise to ensure that its rules were supported by appropriate legislation. Proposed amendments to Rules 12A-1.094(1) and 12A-1.094(4), Florida Administrative Code, are at issue here. Those rules, as revised by the proposed amendments, read as follows: This rule shall govern the taxability of transactions in which contractors manufacture or purchase supplies and material for use in public works contracts, as that term is referred to in Section 212.08(6), F.S. This rule shall not apply to non-public works contracts for the repair, alteration, improvement, or construction of real property, as those contracts are governed under the provisions of Rule 12A-1,051, F.A.C. In applying this rule, the following definitions are used. 1. "Contractor" is one that supplies and installs tangible personal property that is incorporated into or becomes a part of a public facility pursuant to a public works contract with a governmental entity exercising its authority in regard to the public property or facility. Contractors include, but are not limited to, persons engaged in building, electrical, plumbing, heating, painting, decorating, ventilating, paperhanging, sheet metal, roofing, bridge, road, waterworks, landscape, pier, or billboard work. This definition includes subcontractors. "Contractor" does not include a person that furnishes tangible personal property that is not affixed or appended in such a manner that it is incorporated into or becomes a part of the public property or public facility to which a public works contract relates. A person that provides and installs tangible personal property that is freestanding and can be relocated with no tools, equipment, or need for adaptation for use elsewhere is not a contractor within the scope of this rule. "Contractor" does not include a person that provides tangible personal property that will be incorporated into or becomes part of a public facility if such property will be installed by another party. Examples. A vendor sells a desk, sofas, chairs, tables, lamps, and art prints for the reception area in a new public building. The sales agreement requires the vendor to place the furniture according to a floor plan, set up the lamps, and hang the art prints. The vendor is not a contractor within the scope of this rule, because the vendor is not installing the property being sold in such a way that it is attached or affixed to the facility. A security system vendor furnishes and install low voltage wiring behind walls, motion detectors, smoke alarms, other sensors, control pads, alarm sirens, and other components of a security system for a new county courthouse. The components are direct wired, fit into recesses cut into the walls or other structural elements of the building, and are held in place by screws. The vendor is a contractor within the scope of this rule. The security system is installed and affixed in such a manner that it ha been incorporated into the courthouse. A vendor enters an agreement to provide and install the shelving system for a new public library. The shelves are built to bear the weight of books. The shelf configuration in each unit maximizes the number of books the shelves can hold. The number and size of the units ordered is based on the design for the library space. The units will run floor to ceiling and will be anchored in place by bolts or screws. The vendor is a contractor within the scope of this rule. The shelving system will be affixed in such a manner that it becomes a part of the public library. e. A manufacturer agrees to provide the prestressed concrete forms for a public parking garage. A construction company is awarded the bid to install those forms and build the garage. The manufacturer is not a contractor within the scope of this rule, because the manufacturer will not install any tangible personal property that becomes part of the garage. The construction company is a contractor within the scope of this rule. "Governmental entity" includes any agency or branch of the United States government, a state, or any county, municipality, or political subdivision of a state. The term includes authorities created by statute to operate public facilities using public funds, such as public port authorities or public-use airport authorities. "Public works" are defined as construction projects for public use or enjoyment, financed and owned by the government, in which private persons undertake the obligation to do a specific piece of work that involves installing tangible personal property in such a manner that it becomes a part of a public facility. For purposes of this rule, a public facility includes any land, improvement to land, building, structure, or other fixed site and related infrastructure thereon owned or operated by a governmental entity where governmental or public activities are conducted. The term "public works" is not restricted to the repair, alteration, improvement, or construction of real property and fixed works, although such projects are included within the term. "Real property" within the meaning of this rule includes all fixtures and improvements to real property. The status of a project as an improvement or fixture to real property will be determined by reference to the definitions contained in Rule 12A-1.051(2), F.A.C. * * * (4)(a) The exemption in s. 212.08(6), F.S., is a general exemption for sales made directly to the government. A determination whether a particular transaction is properly characterized as an exempt sale to a governmental entity or a taxable sale to or use by a contractor shall be based on the substance of the transaction, rather than the form in which the transaction is cast. The Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee in the responsible program will determine whether the substance of a particular transaction is a taxable sale to or use by a contractor or an exempt direct sale to a governmental entity based on all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction as a whole. The following criteria that govern the status of the tangible personal property prior to its affixation to real property will be considered in determining whether a governmental entity rather than a contractor is the purchaser of materials: Direct Purchase Order. The governmental entity must issue its purchase order directly to the vendor supplying the materials the contractor will use and provide the vendor with a copy of the governmental entity's Florida Consumer's Certification of Exemption. Direct Invoice. The vendor's invoice must be issued to the governmental entity, rather than to the contractor. Passage of Title. The governmental entity must take title to the tangible personal property from the vendor at the time of purchase or delivery by the vendor. 5. Assumption of the Risk of Loss. Assumption of the risk of damage or loss by the governmental entity at the time of purchase is a paramount consideration. A governmental entity will be deemed to have assumed the risk of loss if the governmental entity bears the economic burden of obtaining insurance covering damage or loss or directly enjoys the economic benefit of the proceeds of such insurance. Sales are taxable sales to the contractor unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee in the responsible division that such sales are, in substance, tax-exempt direct sales to the government. Respondent's staff assisted various industry groups in drafting proposed legislation for the 2001 and 2002 legislative sessions that would expand the sales tax exemption for public works contracts. The Legislature did not enact any of these proposals. The proposed rule amendments reflect Respondent's current practice regarding tax exemptions for public works contracts. The proposed amendments detail all factors, criteria, and standards that Respondent considers in determining whether transactions qualify for the exemption set forth in Section 212.08(6), Florida Statutes. The existing version of Rule 12A-1.094, Florida Administrative Code, as revised in 1992, does not reflect these factors. In drafting the proposed revisions to Rule 12A-1.094, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent's staff considered statutory language, questions asked by taxpayers, and cases involving protests of audit assessments. Respondent's staff also considered areas that it believed failed to provide clear guidance as to how taxpayers could structure transactions to avoid the tax. Finally, Respondent's staff considered the decisions in Housing by Vogue, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 403 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and Housing by Vogue, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 422 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1982). As a general rule, a for-profit corporation instead of the contractor is liable to pay sales tax when the contractor agrees to purchase items and to resell the items to the corporation such that the corporation takes possession and ownership thereof. This would be true regardless of whether the contractor or some other individual eventually installs the items on the for-profit corporation's property or in its facility. In either instance, the contractor, as a reseller of tangible personal property, is a dealer who has the obligation to collect the sales tax from the for-profit corporation. The for-profit corporation would be the ultimate consumer of the items. If a contractor resells items to a non-governmental customer, who enjoys tax-exempt status, while the items are still tangible personal property, no sales tax is due. In such a case, it makes no difference whether the contractor or some other individual later installs the items. The taxability of sales to or by contractors who repair, alter, improve and construct real property pursuant to non-public works contracts is governed by Rule 12A-1.051, Florida Administrative Code, which states as follows in relevant part: Scope of the rule. This rule governs the taxability of the purchase, sale, or use of tangible personal property by contractors and subcontractors who purchase, acquire, or manufacture materials and supplies for use in the performance of real property contracts other than public works contracts performed for governmental entities, which are governed by the provisions of Rule 12A-1.094, F.A.C. . . . Definitions. For purposes of this rule, the following terms have the following meanings: * * * (c)1. "Fixture" means an item that is an accessory to a building, other structure, or to land, that retains its separate identity upon installation, but that is permanently attached to the realty. Fixtures include such items as wired lighting, kitchen or bathroom sinks, furnaces, central air conditioning units, elevators or escalators, or built-in cabinets, counters, or lockers. 2. In order for an item to be considered a fixture, it is not necessary that the owner of the item also own the real property to which the item is attached. . . . * * * (g) "Real property" means land, improvements to land, and fixtures. It is synonymous with the terms "realty" and "real estate." Pursuant to the statute and the proposed rule amendments, contractors who purchase tangible personal property that goes into or becomes a part of a public works are not entitled to an exemption from paying sales tax. Such a contractor would be the ultimate consumer of the tangible personal property and not a dealer. The statute and the rule at issue here require Respondent to look at the substance instead of the form of each transaction to determine when sales tax is due. To say that no tax is due anytime a contractor agrees to purchase and resell items to a governmental customer, such that the governmental customer takes possession and ownership thereof before the same contractor installs the items, would be contrary to the statute. To find otherwise would place form over substance, allowing the contractor and the governmental entity to avoid the statutorily imposed tax by casting the transaction as a resale. The proposed rule amendments do not expand the sales and/or use tax imposed by Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Instead, they implement the statutory provision requiring governmental contractors to pay sales tax when they supply and install items in a governmental project pursuant to a public works contract. Depending on the circumstances, "public works" include a construction project on a job site where the governmental entity owns the real property. It also includes a construction project on a job site where the governmental entity owns a public facility located on real property owned by a private individual. The term "public works" includes a public facility which is owned and operated by a governmental entity for the purpose of conducting governmental activities regardless of who owns the real property on which it is located. According to the statute, Respondent's rules must give special consideration to the status of tangible personal property "before its affixation to real property." This provision does not mean that a transaction is not taxable unless the tangible personal property becomes a "fixture" or "appurtenance" to real property. Instead, Respondent's proposed rule amendments properly implement the broader legislative intent to tax any sale to a contractor who supplies and installs tangible personal property in public works. Respondent looks first to see whether the tangible personal property will be a fixture or improvement to real property. Next, Respondent must determine whether the tangible personal property will be permanently attached and function as a part of a public works project that does not fit the definition of real property. For example, a port authority may operate an office out of a permanently docked ship. The statute directs Respondent to consider the assumption of risk of damage or loss to be most important but not the only factor in determining whether the sale of tangible personal property is taxable. In addition to the assumption of risk of loss, the proposed rule amendments require a nontaxable sale to show the following: (a) a direct purchase order to the vendor who will supply materials to the contractor; (b) a direct invoice from the vendor rather than the contractor; (c) direct payment to the vendor; and (d) passage of title at time of purchase or delivery. The five factors are inclusive of the elements that Respondent will consider when determining whether of a sale is, in substance, a direct nontaxable sale to a governmental entity.
Findings Of Fact During the audit period in question, i.e., December 1, 1975 through March 31, 1979, Petitioner Ormond Hotel Corporation operated the Ormond Hotel, Ormond Beach, Florida. It was licensed during the audit period by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business Regulation, and classified as a retirement establishment. (Interrogatories) The Ormond Hotel is an old wooden structure containing 350 rooms with 258 rooms available for rental. The remaining rooms are not in proper condition for rental. Most of the hotel guests are over 65 years of age and reside there either permanently or on a seasonal basis, usually from December through March of each year. A few married couples have accommodations at the hotel, but most of the residents are single individuals occupying one room. Prior to 1978, Petitioner advertised the hotel in a national magazine called "Retirement Living" and conducted advertising on billboards, brochures, and in the classified section of the local telephone book under the hearing "Retirement Homes." The latter advertisement states that the facility is "a residential hotel," but also includes the words "DAY-WK-MO-YR." Similarly, the hotel's brochure recites that accommodations are available by day, month, or year. All units are available for rental to permanent tenants, but short-term occupancy is accepted if there are available rooms. The hotel does not have a swimming pool, but does have restaurant facilities and recreation areas. The hotel does not primarily cater to transient guests. (Testimony of Salveson, interrogatories) Respondent's auditor conducted an audit of Petitioner's business operations for the period December 1, 1975, through March 31, 1979. In arriving at whether or not the Ormond Hotel was subject to tax imposed by Section 212.03, Florida Statutes, on its rentals, he examined the Petitioner's books to ascertain the number of total available rental units and the status of tenants at the hotel during the months of April, May, and June of each year. If he found that 50 percent or more of the total units had been rented to persons residing there continuously for the specific three-month period, those tenants were considered to be permanent rather than transient tenants and the hotel was deemed exempt from tax pursuant to Rule 12A-1.61(1), F.A.C. In arriving at his determination of exempt status, the auditor did not deduct unoccupied rooms from the total number of units in arriving at his "fifty percent" determination. Although the auditor analyzed the advertising brochures of Petitioner, and was aware that the hotel was listed in the telephone directory under retirement homes, and concluded that such advertising was directed primarily to the acquisition of permanent guests, he predicted his audit findings solely on the "fifty percent" test concerning occupancy of total units. In this manner, he determined that Petitioner was exempt from taxation in 1975 based on the fact that for the April through June period for that year, 135 of the 264 total units had been occupied continuously by "permanent" tenants. In a similar manner he found that the hotel did not qualify for exemption during the succeeding years of the audit period. In this respect, he found that for 1976, there were only 119 such guests during the three-month period out of the 263 total units, which was less than 50 percent. In 1977, there were 102 such tenants out of 261 total units, which was less than 50 percent. In 1978, there were 98 such tenants and 259 total units, which was less than 50 percent. The auditor's worksheet reflects that there were 124 vacant rooms during the three-month period in 1975, 140 in 1976, 153 in 1977, and 153 in 1978. He concedes that if he had applied the "fifty percent" rule by comparing the number of three-month or "permanent" tenants with the number of occupied rooms for the three-month period each year, the number of rooms occupied by "permanent" guests would have been over fifty percent for each year of the audit period. (Testimony of Boerner, Exhibits 1-2, 4) Based on the audit, Respondent issued two separate "Second Revised Notices of Proposed Assessment" on January 15, 1980. The first assessment covered the period December 1, 1975 through November 30, 1978. It asserted tax due on room rentals in the amount of $21, 362.91 plus a delinquent penalty, and interest through January 15, 1980, for a total sum of $28,062.45. The assessment also asserted tax, penalty and interest for purchases unrelated to room rentals in the amount of $984.92, for a total assessment of $29,047.37. The assessment reflected that a partial payment had been made on October 2, 1979, in the amount of $2,590.62, leaving a balance due of $26,456.75. The other assessment showed tax on room rentals in the amount of $6,001.75, plus delinquent penalty of $300.10, and interest through January 15, 1980 in the amount of $611.76 for a total of $6,913.61. It also asserted tax, penalty, and interest on purchases in the amount of $23.39 for a total assessment of $6,937.00. This assessment also showed partial payment on October 2, 1979, in the amount of $132.08, leaving a balance due of $6,804.92. In a letter transmitting the assessments, dated January 16, 1980, Respondent advised Petitioner that the hotel did not qualify as an exempt facility under Rule 12A- 1.61(1)(a), F.A.C., during the audit period, because less than fifty percent of the facility's units were occupied by guests who had resided there three or more months as of July 1 each year. The letter further stated that "an analysis" of the rental of units submitted by Petitioner as to its exempt status did not conform to the requirements of the rule because the facility advertised to guests on a daily, weekly and monthly basis in addition to long-term leasing, the analysis used an annual rather than a three-month period prior to July as a basis, and the number of tenants at the facility rather than total units. (Exhibit 2) Petitioner's accountant prepared an analysis of the room status at the Ormond Hotel during the period July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1978. It reflects that 165 rooms, or 64.5 percent of the total of 256 units rented during the year, were occupied by tenants for a continuous period of over three months. On March 31 of that year, 157 rooms, or 61 percent of the total of 258 room available for occupancy, were occupied by guests for more than three months. Sixty-nine of the rooms were occupied by transient tenants or those with less than three- months occupancy (17 percent) and 32 rooms were unoccupied (12 percent). As of June 30, 1978, the hotel had 110 guests who had resided there for more than three months, and 18 guests with residency of less than three months. (Testimony of Salveson, Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the proposed tax assessments against Petitioner Ormond Hotel Corporation arising out of the rental of living accommodations at the Ormond Hotel during the period December 1, 1975 through March 1, 1979, be vacated, and that the remainder of the proposed assessments be enforced. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM, 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 10th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Lester Kaney, Esquire Post Office Box 191 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Linda C. Procta, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Revenue issued to the Petitioners a tax warrant dated May 12, 1986, for sales and use tax alleged to be due and delinquent, interest, penalties, and filing fees in the total sum of $8,269.95. Susan R. Bayer is the owner of a parcel of property located in Hillsborough County, Florida, commonly known as 3001 East Hillsborough Avenue, having become the owner of that property on February 29, 1984. Lloyd W. Bayer owned the property in finding 2 above prior to February 29, 1984. When Susan Bayer became the owner of the property, she became the successor in interest to a lease between Brown Bayer, Inc., and Creech Produce, Inc., wherein a portion of the property was leased to Creech Produce, Inc., for use by Creech Produce, Inc., to let sellers of produce use a space to park a vehicle to sell produce out of the vehicle. This business of Creech was licensed by the City of Tampa as a parking lot. The spaces in the lot were rented on a nightly basis and rent was collected on a nightly basis. There were no terms of rentals for periods longer than a nightly basis. The persons parking vehicles in the spaces generally sold wholesale produce out of the vehicles but not all of them did so, and there was no requirement the vehicles occupying these spaces be used for any specific purpose. In 1985, Susan Bayer filed proceedings against Creech Produce, Inc., seeking to revoke the lease to Creech. One ground alleged in this complaint (Exhibit 8) was that Creech was using the property in violation of state laws and regulations in failing to collect sales taxes on the parking fees and remit same to the Department of Revenue. The court not only ruled against Bayer on the eviction proceedings but extended the lease for an additional year. The lease to Creech (Exhibit 5) provided, inter alia, that the lessee would pay 1/2 of the sanitation expense paid by the lessor and that portion of electricity used for the portion of the building used and the lights for the outside of the property." The electricity was billed to the lessor and, pursuant to this lease provision, Creech remitted its share of the bill to the lessor. This payment for electricity by Creech was included by Respondent as rent on which the sales tax was levied. Exhibit 3 clearly conveys the intent of the parties to lease the property to be used by the lessee as a parking lot for the vehicles from which produce was to be sold and that the lessee could collect the fees for the use of these parking spaces. On February 1, 1984, Bayer entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale (Exhibit 2) with Bobby Lee McGilvery and Adella Fisher to sell the business known as Farmer Jahn's Ice to the latter. This business consisted of two icemaking machines on the premises of 3001 East Hillsborough Avenue, storage- disposing facilities at about 60 locations in Tampa, a pickup truck, step-van, ice baggers, bags, etc. McGilvery had worked for Bayer in this business of making and selling ice cubes for 15 years and purchased the business with no money down for a total price of $125,000 to be paid at the rate of $1,275 per month at 10 percent interest until the total of $125,000 is paid. Exhibit 2 provided that a separate lease agreement for the property occupied by the business would be executed providing for payment of $500 per month. A promissory note in the amount of $125,000 payable to Bayer was executed by McGilvery and Fisher (Exhibit 3) which provided for payment of $1,725 per month with interest at 10 percent until the total of $125,000 was paid. There appears to have been a scrivener's error in the preparation of the note so far as the monthly payment is concerned. Since the sale agreement provided for the business to be paid for at $1,275 per month and a rental price of $500 per month the monthly payments should have been $1,775. The Business Lease executed February 1, 1984, (Exhibit 4) provided "consideration for this lease is the note on the sale of the business." The auditor for Respondent based his sales tax calculation solely on the Business Lease (Exhibit 4) and the promissory note and calculated the tax on a rental of $1,725 per month. McGilvery and Fisher defaulted on the payments on the note and the business was recaptured by Petitioner. Having no lien on the personal property sold to the buyers Petitioner was able to recover only a small portion of those items enumerated in Finding 9 above.
Findings Of Fact Having heard oral argument on the issues and considered the record transmitted to the respondent by the BTA, as supplemented by the testimony of Mr. Kurtgis, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner is the owner of that property located at 114 S.W. 10th Street in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, more particularly described as "Lot's 15, 17 Block 7 /Croissant Park, River Station 7-50B. Lot's 19, 21, 23 Block 16 Croissant Park, River Section 7-50B" Byron P. Kurtgis was the petitioner's Secretary from July of 1972 through July of 1973. In February of 1973, Kurtgis experienced a broker finger and was unable to use his hand for at least one month. For this reason, he got behind in his affairs and was unable to process the exemption application or to turn necessary documents over to the Club's certified public accountant. His regular employment took precedence over his club work, and he turned the papers over to the CPA when he realized he would not make the April 1st deadline. The exemption application and return was dated April 12, 1973, and received by the Tax Assessor on April 16, 1973. On June 1, 1973, the Tax Assessor notified petitioner that the application for tax exemption had been denied for the reason that it was received after April 1st. Were it not for the untimely filing of the exemption application, the Tax Assessor would have granted petitioner a charitable exemption from ad valorem taxation. Upon appeal by petitioner to the Broward County BTA on the stated grounds of "clerical error and mistake in failure to file return on time, and denial was contrary to law," the BTA granted the tax exemption to petitioner on July 18, 1973. The BTA notified the respondent of the change in the assessor's action. The staff recommendation of the respondent was to invalidate said change on the ground that petitioner failed to demonstrate that it came within an exception to the waiver rule of 196.011 and therefore the change by the BTA lacked legal sufficiency and/or the evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the assessor's presumption of correctness. Petitioner requested a hearing to review the staff recommendation, the Executive Director of the respondent requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing, and the undersigned was assigned as the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the action of the Broward County Board of Tax Adjustment granting the exemption be invalidated. Respectfully submitted and entered this 12th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. J. Ed Straughn Executive Director Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Charles G. Brakins, Esquire ROGERS, MORRIS & ZIEGLER 800 East Broward Boulevard 700 Cumberland Building Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Stephen Mitchell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Gaylor Wood, Esquire WOOD & GOHEN 603 Courthouse Square Building 200 Southeast Street, 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 457, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings before the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) and is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within FREC’s jurisdiction. At all times material, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate broker, license number 684990, under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker at Florida’s Best Buy Realty & Mortgage Lender, LLC, Post Office Box 551, Winter Park, Florida 32793. On or about February 15, 2007, Respondent entered into a contract to manage the single-family dwelling owned by Jacqueline Danzer. The property is located at 2979 Krista Key Circle, Orlando, Florida 32817 (Subject Property). The agreement was for the period February 15, 2007, until February 15, 2008. Respondent was authorized, under the management agreement, to seek a tenant for the property. Said management agreement authorized Respondent to be compensated at the rate of 10 percent of the rent due during each rental period. On or about March 27, 2007, Respondent negotiated a lease agreement with Veronica Valcarcel to rent the Subject Propery. The tenant applied through the federal Section 8 program, administered by the Orange County Housing and Community Development Division (Agency), for rental assistance in order to rent the Subject Property. Section 8 assists low-income families with their rent. A tenant who qualifies for Section 8 assistance is prohibited from paying more than 40 percent of his or her income for rent and utilities. On April 26, 2007, Respondent, acting on behalf of the landlord for the Subject Property, entered into and signed a “Housing Assistance Payment Contract” or “HAP” contract with the Agency as part of the Section 8 program. The HAP contract provided that for the initial lease term for the Subject Property (for the period April 1, 2007, until March 31, 2008), the initial monthly rent was $1,150 per month. This was determined to be the maximum payment the tenant could pay without exceeding 40 percent of her income. The HAP contract explicitly provides in its terms that “[d]uring the initial lease term, the owner may not raise the rent to tenant.” Respondent knew that he was prohibited from charging more than the monthly rent stated in the HAP contract. Respondent has had experience in the past with other tenants who participated in the Section 8 program. Respondent has previously signed other HAP contracts which contained the same restrictive language. Under the lease contract that the tenant Veronica Valcarcel signed with the property owner Jacqueline Danzer, the monthly rent would be $1,150 per month. The signature page in the lease contract is not the same page on which the monthly rental amount is written. The property owner Jacqueline Danzer asserts that the initials in the lease contract reflecting a monthly rental of $1,150 were not all her initials. Under the terms of the Exclusive Property Management Agreement, Respondent was being compensated at the rate of 10 percent per month after the first month. A monthly rental amount of $1,500 indicates that the property owner would receive a net of $1,350 per month. The property management agreement provided that Respondent would make payments to the property owner by direct deposit. The property management agreement lists a 12-digit bank account number, with the last four digits of “6034,” into which Respondent was to make direct deposits. At the hearing, property owner Jacqueline Danzer testified that she had received payments from Respondent for the Subject Property to her Bank of America savings account, with the account number ending in “6034.” The last four digits of the account number on the Bank of America Statement match the last four digits on the account number found on the Property Management Agreement. According to the Bank of America records, Respondent made the following payments to the property owner: a) $1,550 on May 9, 2007 b) $1,000 on May 9, 2007 c) $850 on June 12, 2007 d) $1,350 on July 11, 2007 e) $1,350 on September 10, 2007 On September 12, 2007, property owner, Jacqueline Danzer went to see Lois Henry, the manager of the Section 8 department for the Agency. During the course of that meeting, Dnazer advised that Respondent was collecting $1,500 a month rent from the tenant instead of $1,150 a month. On September 12, 2007, during the course of a telephone conference with Jacqueline Danzer and Lois Henry, Respondent admitted that he had been collecting $1,500 monthly rent for the Subject Property, retaining a commission of $150 and depositing the balance in Danzer’s account. Respondent denied making an admission during the telephone conference on September 12, 2007. He also denied that he was collecting $1,500 from the tenant, and further denied that he was violating Section 8 regulations. Respondent’s testimony is not credible. The witness Danzer’s testimony is credible. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Housing Assistance Payments Contract. The total amount of investigative costs for the Petitioner for this case, not including attorney’s time, were $874.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; Revoking Respondent’s license, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00; and Requiring Respondent pay fees and costs related to the investigation in the amount of $874.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 26th day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Arrowhead Country Club (Arrowhead) is a business entity owned by Can Am Company, Ltd., a limited partnership, which held at all times pertinent to this case a beverage license issued by the Division of Beverage. Can Am Company, Ltd. entered into a lease with EST Corporation (EST) to lease the restaurant and lounge at Arrowhead to EST. Subsequently, RST applied for its corporate charter but was unable to use the name RST. It amended its corporate name to Wilval Corporation (Wilval). RST/Wilval continued to operate the restaurant and lounge under the terms of its lease. EST/Wilval obtained a sales tax number, collected tax, and remitted taxes for several months, May through October, 1978. Thereafter, RST/Wilval failed to remit sales taxes to the Department of Revenue. RST/Wilval also began to fall behind on its payments to Arrowhead under its lease. This resulted in Arrowhead taking certain charges in payment for monies due under the lease and collecting them from club members. Arrowhead remitted the four percent lease tax but not the sales tax on these collections. Testimony was submitted by the Department's auditor that there was no evidence of collusion between RST/ Wilval and Arrowhead or indication that they did not deal at arm's length with one another. The Department audited RST/Wilval and determined that, although the first few months of records were complete, its total records were incomplete. An estimate of sales taxes due was based upon estimates of the sales based upon the records of Arrowhead on the restaurant and lounge operations for the preceding year adjusted for price increases. These estimates, when compared against the records which were maintained by RST/Wilval in its first months of operation, show a close correlation. Based upon these estimates, the sales taxes assessed against RST/Wilval were $7,965.14. This assessment was presented to Ralph Williams, the manager of the RST/Wilval operation. Williams, an officer of the corporation, advised that RST/Wilval was unable to pay the taxes. The Department of Revenue then filed a warrant for collection of delinquent taxes, and the Sheriff of Broward County attempted to levy on the warrant. Williams tendered to Arrowhead a Notice of Termination of the Lease and vacated the premises on March 26, 1979. When the Sheriff attempted to levy the warrant, he found that Williams had left the location and the property on the premises belonged to Arrowhead. On Nay 18, 1979, the Department presented a jeopardy assessment to Arrowhead, which led to the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the sales taxes due not be assessed against Arrowhead Country Club. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Linda C. Procta, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis J. Pleeter, Esquire 6200 Stirling Road, Davie Post Office Box 8549 Hollywood, Florida 33024
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined, because, as alleged, Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises and pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction; failed to place a trust deposit with her employing broker and operated as a broker while licensed as a salesman in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(b), and (k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Barbara B. Wise, was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0484022. The last license issued Respondent was as a salesman, c/o Grover Goheen Realty, Inc., at 414 Twelfth Avenue, North, St. Petersburg, Florida. During October 1988, Respondent, while licensed and operating as a salesman in the employ of her broker, Goheen Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a lease listing agreement from Michael Riggins. As a result of that listing, Marsha Tenny contacted Respondent and requested assistance in obtaining a seasonal lease for the period January 1989 through April 30, 1989. Ms. Tenny made Respondent aware of her needs respecting a lease property to include wheelchair access as her husband was wheelchair bound. As a result of visiting approximately three available units, Respondent secured a seasonal lease from Michael Riggins for Marsha Tenny. The lease agreement for the Tenny's was the first rental listing that Respondent had obtained and it suffices to say that she was a novice in the area of securing lease agreements. Likewise, her employing broker did very little volume in rentals as her broker was of the opinion that the net commissions were not sufficient to defray the time and effort involved for several reasons including the limited availability of rental properties. As a result, her broker was unable to provide guidance. Pursuant to the aforementioned lease agreement, Respondent named several options by which Marsha Tenny could secure the apartment to include sending a personal check to her and after negotiating it she would in turn pay the rental fees directly to the landlord. Other options included Ms. Tenny sending separate checks to the landlord for the apartment and a check for the commission fees to her employing broker or she could deal directly with the landlord and remit a separate check to her employing broker for fees. Ms. Tenny elected to send a money order in the amount of $1,500.00 to Respondent. After she negotiated the check she received from Marsha Tenny, Respondent retained her commissions and did not pay her broker the pro-rata share that the broker was entitled to. Respondent did not inform her broker of the Riggins/Tenny lease agreement when she received the deposit from the Tennys on or about October 23, 1988. Respondent negotiated the Tenny's deposit check by depositing same into her personal account and drew a check in the amount of $1,100.00 as the rental deposit and remitted it to Mr. Riggins on October 2.1, 1988. Respondent retained the $400.00 balance as her fee. Respondent tendered her employing broker its portion of the commission fees ($174.00) on February 24, 1989. During early February 1989, the Tennys expressed dissatisfaction with the apartment and demanded a refund from Respondent. Respondent wrote the Tennys a letter of apology and submitted a money order to Marsha Tenny in the amount of $50.00 on February 3, 1989. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) As stated, Respondent was inexperienced with the rental business in Pinellas County. She was at the time undergoing other family problems, including tending to a sister in Orange County, Florida, who was very ill. At the time, Respondent commuted from Pinellas County to Orange County several times per week to visit with and assist her sister. Additionally, Respondent's office was being relocated and the staff was having to relay messages to her through her husband and other salesman employed with her broker. In addition to sending the Tennys a money order in the amount of $50.00, Respondent agreed to repay the Tennys the entire remaining balance of the finders fee that she received from the Riggins/Tenny leasing agreement as soon as she was financially able to do so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be issued a written reprimand and placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. During the probationary period, Respondent shall enroll in an approved post-licensure course and shall satisfactorily complete the same prior to termination of probation. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 April, 1990. Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Barbara B. Wise 1059 42nd Avenue, N.E. St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Kenneth E. Easley, Esq. Division of Real Estate Department of Prof. Reg. 400 West Robinson Street 1940 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 1900 Suite 60 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tallahassee, FL 32399
