The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner is a "small business party" as the term is defined at section 57.111(3)(d). On June 21, 2010, the Petitioner applied to acquire an existing alcoholic beverage "quota" license from another licensee. The Petitioner had to pay a fee to transfer the license pursuant to section 561.32(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), which provides as follows: Before the issuance of any transfer of license herein provided, the transferee shall pay a transfer fee of 10 percent of the annual license tax to the division, except for those licenses issued pursuant to s. 565.02(1) and subject to the limitation imposed in s. 561.20(1), for which the transfer fee shall be assessed on the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the 3 years immediately preceding transfer and levied at the rate of 4 mills, except that such transfer fee shall not exceed $5,000; in lieu of the 4-mill assessment, the transferor may elect to pay $5,000. Further, the maximum fee shall be applied with respect to any such license which has been inactive for the 3-year period. Records establishing the value of such gross sales shall accompany the application for transfer of the license, and falsification of such records shall be punishable as provided in s. 562.45. All transfer fees collected by the division on the transfer of licenses issued pursuant to s. 565.02(1) and subject to the limitation imposed in s. 561.20(1) shall be returned by the division to the municipality in which such transferred license is operated or, if operated in the unincorporated area of the county, to the county in which such transferred license is operated. (emphasis added). License transfer applicants are required to provide gross sales records pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-5.010(2)(b), which provides as follows: An applicant for a transfer of a quota liquor license shall provide records of gross sales for the past 3 years or for the period of time current licensee has held license in order that the division may compute the transfer fee. An applicant may, in lieu of providing these records, elect to pay the applicable transfer fee as provided by general law. The gross sales records provided to the Respondent by the Petitioner were for the five-month period between January 21 and June 21, 2010, and totaled $573,948.94 for the period. To compute the transfer fee, the Respondent divided the reported gross sales ($573,948.94) by five to estimate an average monthly gross sales figure of $114,789.79.2/ The Respondent multiplied the estimated average monthly gross sales by 12, to estimate annual gross sales of $1,377,477.48. The Respondent then applied the 4-mill rate to the estimated annual gross sales and determined the transfer fee to be $5,509.91. The Respondent also calculated the transfer fee through a formula set forth on a form that had been challenged as an unadopted rule by an applicant in a 2008 proceeding. While the 2008 rule challenge was pending, the Respondent commenced to adopt the form as a rule, but the dispute was ultimately resolved without a hearing, after which the Respondent discontinued the process to adopt the rule. According to the formula on the form, the transfer fee was $5,599.50. Because both of the Respondent's calculations resulted in transfer fees in excess of $5,000, the Respondent required the Petitioner to pay the statutory maximum of $5,000. The Petitioner paid the $5,000 transfer fee under protest. The Petitioner asserted that the appropriate transfer fee should have been $765.27. The Petitioner's calculation used the reported five months of gross sales ($573,948.94) as the total annual gross sales for the licensee. The Petitioner divided the $573,948.94 by three to determine a three-year average of $191,316.31 and then applied the 4-mill rate to the three-year average to compute a transfer fee of $765.27. On March 17, 2011, the Petitioner filed an Application for Refund of $4,234.73, the difference between the $5,000 paid and the $765.27 that the Petitioner calculated as the appropriate fee. The Application for Refund was filed pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes, which governs requests for repayment of funds paid through error into the State Treasury, including overpayment of license fees. Section 215.26(2) requires that in denying an application for a tax refund, an agency's notice of denial must state the reasons for the denial. As authorized by section 72.11(2)(b)3, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has adopted rules that govern the process used to notify an applicant that a request for refund has been denied. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-16.002(3) states as follows: Any tax refund denial issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation becomes final for purposes of Section 72.011, Florida Statutes, when final agency action is taken by the Department concerning the refund request and taxpayer is notified of this decision and advised of alternatives available to the taxpayer for contesting the action taken by the agency. By letter dated May 9, 2011, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that the request for refund had been denied and stated only that "[w]e reviewed the documentation presented and determined that a refund is not due." The Respondent's notice did not advise that the Petitioner could contest the decision. On May 16, 2011, the Petitioner submitted a Request for Hearing to the Respondent, asserting that the Respondent improperly calculated the transfer fee by projecting sales figures for months when there were no reported sales. On August 4, 2011, the Respondent issued a letter identified as an "Amended Notice of Denial" again advising that the Petitioner's refund request had been denied. The letter also stated as follows: The Division cannot process your refund application due to the fact that the transferee has not provided the Division records which show the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the transfer. On September 14, 2011, the Respondent forwarded the Petitioner's Request for Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH Case No. 11-4637). By letter dated October 10, 2011, the Respondent issued a "Second Amended Notice of Denial" which stated as follows: We regret to inform you that pursuant to Section 561.23(3)(a), Florida Statutes, your request for refund . . . in the amount of $4,234.73 is denied. However, the Division has computed the transfer fee and based upon the records submitted by you pursuant to Rule 61A-5.010(2)(b), F.A.C., the Division will issue the Applicant a refund in the amount of $2,704.20. The records referenced in the letter were submitted with the original application for transfer that was filed by the Petitioner on March 17, 2011. The Respondent's recalculated transfer fee was the result of applying the 4-mill levy directly to the reported five months of gross sales reported in the transfer application, resulting in a revised transfer fee of $2,295.80 and a refund of $2,704.20. On October 11, 2011, the Respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Amended Notice of Denial, which was granted, over the Petitioner's opposition, on October 21, 2011. DOAH Case No. 11-4637 was resolved by execution of a Consent Order wherein the parties agreed to the refund of $2,704.20 "solely to preclude additional legal fees and costs," but the Consent Order also stated that the "Petitioner expressly does not waive any claim for attorneys' fees in this matter pursuant to F.S. 57.111." The Petitioner is seeking an award of attorney's fees of $8,278.75 and costs of $75, for a total award of $8,353.75. The parties have stipulated that the amount of the attorney's fees and costs sought by the Petitioner are reasonable. The Respondent failed to establish that the original calculation of the applicable transfer fee was substantially justified. The evidence fails to establish that there are special circumstances that would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact Certain hospital equipment ("Equipment") was sold in 1973 and 1974 by Hospital Contract Consultants ("Vendor") to F & E Community Developers and Jackson Realty Builders (hereinafter referred to as "Purchasers") who simultaneously leased the Equipment to Petitioner. These companies are located in Indiana. At the time of purchase, Florida sales tax ("Tax") was paid by the Purchasers and on or about March 18, 1974, the tax was remitted to the State of Florida by the Vendor. However, the Tax was paid in the name of Medical Facilities Equipment Company, a subsidiary of Vendor. In 1976, the Department of Revenue audited Petitioner and on or about April 26, 1976 assessed a tax on purchases and rental of the Equipment. On or about April 26, 1976, petitioner agreed to pay the amount of the assessment on the purchases and rentals which included the Equipment, in monthly installments of approximately Ten Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($10,000.00) each and subsequently paid such amount of assessment with the last monthly installment paid on or about November 26, 1976. On or about December, 1976, the Department of Revenue, State of Florida, checked its records and could not find the Vendor registered to file and pay sales tax with the State of Florida. Petitioner then looked to the State of Indiana for a tax refund. On or about January 4, 1977, Petitioner filed for a refund of sales tax from the State of Florida in the amount of Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred Four and 02/100 Dollars ($35,104.02). This amount was the sales tax paid to and remitted by various vendors for certain other equipment purchased in 1973 and 1974 and simultaneously leased. The amount of this refund request was granted and paid. Relying upon the facts expressed in paragraph 4 heretofore, Petitioner on or about June 2, 1977 filed with the Department of Revenue of the State of Indiana for the refund of the Tax. On or about June 7, 1979, the Department of Revenue of Indiana determined that the Vendor was registered in the State of Florida as Medical Facilities Equipment Company and therefore Petitioner should obtain the refund of the Tax form the State of Florida. So advised, Petitioner then filed the request for amended refund, which is the subject of this lawsuit, on July 16, 1979 in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen and 28/100 Dollars ($17,216.28). This request for refund was denied by Respondent, Office of the Comptroller, on the basis of the three year statute of non-claim set forth in section 215.26, Florida Statutes. Purchasers have assigned all rights, title and interest in sales and use tax refunds to Petitioner. During the audit of Petitioner in 1976 the lease arrangement on the equipment apparently came to light and Petitioner was advised sales tax was due on the rentals paid for the equipment. This resulted in an assessment against Petitioner of some $80,000 which was paid at the rate of $10,000 per month, with the last installment in November, 1976. The auditor advised Petitioner that a refund of sales tax on the purchase of this equipment was payable and he checked the Department's records for those companies registered as dealers in Florida. These records disclosed that sales taxes on the sale of some of this rental equipment had been remitted by the sellers of the equipment but Hospital Contract Consultants was not registered. Petitioner was advised to claim a refund of this sales tax from Indiana, the State of domicile of Hospital Contract Consultants. By letter on March 18, 1974, Amedco Inc., the parent company of wholly owned Hospital Contract Consultants, Inc. had advised the Florida Department of Revenue that Medical Facilities Equipment Company, another subsidiary, would report under ID No. 78-23-20785-79 which had previously been assigned to Hospital Contract Consultants Inc. which had erroneously applied for this registration. (Exhibit 2) Not stated in that letter but contained in Indiana Department of Revenue letter of April 18, 1979 was the information that the name of Hospital Contract Consultants had been changed to Medical Facilities Equipment Company. The request for the refund of some $17,000 submitted to Indiana in 1976 was finally denied in 1979 after research by the Indiana Department of Revenue showed the sales tax had been paid to Florida and not to Indiana.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or, rather, whether he leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as Respondent alleges.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all relevant times, Petitioner Philip E. Hancock ("Hancock") was a sole proprietor doing business in and around Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under the names "Action Plant Rental" and "Action Plants." Respondent Department of Revenue ("Department"), an agency of the State of Florida, is authorized to administer the state's tax laws. An Overview of Hancock's Businesses In 1980, Hancock and his then-wife purchased a nursery and, as proprietors, started a business called "Landscape Concepts." Initially, the couple's business activities involved landscaping and (b) sales of plants and nursery stock at wholesale (mostly) and retail. Sometime in 1983, Landscape Concepts began "renting" plants and trees for special events, such as weddings, banquets, and charity fundraisers.2 In time, this plant rental business eclipsed the original landscaping and sales operations, and by the late 1980's the ascendant enterprise was dubbed "Action Plant Rental."3 In 1990, having established Action Plant Rental, the Hancocks sold their nursery, whereupon Landscape Concepts stopped selling plants on a regular basis. The landscaping business, in contrast, tapered off gradually, continuing for several more years until being discontinued completely at the end of 1993. As of January 1994, plant rental was Petitioner's sole vocation. A Closer Look At the Plant Rental Business The evidence concerning the details of how Hancock's plant rental business operated during the audit period is relatively sparse, consisting of little, if anything, other than Hancock's testimony, which is generally credible as far as it goes, but not comprehensive. Hancock's clients, for the most part, were not the individuals who hosted or sponsored the events for which Action Plant Rental supplied "green décor" (to use Hancock's phrase), but rather were the event planners, designers, florists, and hotels (which frequently acted as planners in connection with events held on their premises) who had been hired by the hosts or sponsors to make their events happen. Thus, Hancock usually did not deal directly with, for example, the bride, but with the bride's wedding planner. In effect, he was a subcontractor. Hancock did not enter into written contracts with his clients. When a client retained Hancock, the client informed Hancock when and where the event would be held, and told Hancock (or asked him for an opinion about) which plants would be appropriate. The evidence is ambiguous as to the degree of Hancock's input and discretion in selecting the particular plants to bring to a given event. While the undersigned is persuaded that Hancock had some involvement in choosing the plants at least some of the time, it cannot be found that this service, to the extent provided, added substantial value to the transaction——or was one for which clients specifically and knowingly paid. When the time came for Hancock to perform the agreement, he delivered the plants and trees to the site and, at a time before the event was to begin, set them up in the hall or ballroom. Setting up the plants to create a pleasing and appropriate environment no doubt required decorating skill. It is undisputed, moreover, that Hancock commonly added decorating touches, such as lights and decorative containers, to his plants and trees, which made the display more attractive. What is less clear, however, is whether clients purchased Hancock's decorating expertise——or if, instead, Hancock executed the commands of someone else who decided how to arrange and present the plants. On this point, as others, it might have been helpful to hear from some clients. As it is, Hancock's own testimony is somewhat ambiguous. While the question is extremely close, the undersigned is persuaded, on the evidence presented, that Hancock usually operated under the direction of his client and had relatively little control over the design and arrangement of his plants and trees at the event site. Thus, the undersigned is unable to find that Hancock's decorating services provided the ultimate value to Hancock's clients. Once the plants were set in place and Hancock was assured that the arrangement satisfied his client, Hancock left the event site. (This meant, of course, that someone——the client, the host, or even a guest——could have moved the plants around.4 The Department contends that Hancock's absence from the premises demonstrates decisively that possession and control of the plants was surrendered to his client. The undersigned has given this fact some weight, but not a great deal. For one thing, there is no persuasive evidence that the client typically remained on-site with the plants. Further, since the plants were generally set up in a "public" place (as opposed to a personal space such as an office) over which neither the client, nor the host, nor the guests had exclusive control,5 the undersigned is not persuaded that the client or others attending the event had possession and control of the plants in any meaningful sense. Indeed, under the Department's theory, the plants apparently would have been in the constructive possession, at least, of everyone present at the party——a conclusion that runs counter to common sense and ordinary experience. The opportunity to move a plant is not, in the undersigned’s mind, equivalent to having a possessory right or power over the plant.) When the event was over, Hancock returned to the site to retrieve and remove his plants. Later, Hancock sent the client an invoice for his "services." As far as the evidence shows, Hancock did not bill his clients separately for delivery, set up, removal, or design, but rather he charged a lump sum for the plants, which price included these associated services as part of the total package. Petitioner's History As a Sales Tax-Paying Dealer From at least 1985, and continuing through the middle of 1994, Landscape Concepts, as a registered dealer having identification number 16-03-109301-76, collected and remitted sales taxes on the revenues generated through retail plant sales and plant rentals, filing monthly sales tax returns as legally required.6 If a client gave Petitioner a resale certificate, however, Petitioner did not collect sales tax from that client. Because most of Petitioner's plant rental customers were other businesses (e.g. event planners, florists, and hotels) that provided resale certificates to Petitioner, a relatively small percentage of these transactions were taxed. In mid-1994, while in one of the Department's regional offices attending to some since forgotten sales tax-related matter, Hancock was shown Rule 12A-1.071 of the Florida Administrative Code. This Rule then contained the following provision: (35)(a) A decorating contractor who uses materials and supplies such as bunting, streamers, colored paper, wreaths, pennants, lights, rope, etc., in fulfilling a contract which requires the furnishing of arrangements and decorations to, and their subsequent removal from, hotels, offices, public buildings, etc., is the consumer of such materials and supplies and shall pay tax on their acquisition. The contractor's charge under such contract is a service charge and is exempt. Fla. Admin. Code R. 12A-1.071(35)(a).7 Hancock concluded that he was entitled to the benefit of the foregoing "decorator's exemption." Hancock asked a local employee of the Department whether he could claim the exemption, and she advised him to write a letter to the Department's main office in Tallahassee. Hancock sent the Department a letter announcing his intent to stop filing monthly sales tax returns. Enclosed with this letter was Hancock's sales tax certificate, which Hancock purported to "relinquish." The Department did not respond to Hancock's letter. Hancock did not file another sales tax return.8 The Audit and Protest In January 2001, the Department commenced a sales and use tax audit of Hancock's plant rental business, initially concentrating on the five-year period from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 2000. The Department later enlarged the audit period to span 16 years, reaching all the way back to June 1, 1985, and continuing through June 30, 2001. This expansion was based on the Department's belief that Hancock had never filed any sales tax returns respecting his business——a belief that, as found above, would prove to be incorrect. After concluding that Hancock's tax records were "adequate but voluminous," the Department used a sampling method to calculate the amount of tax allegedly owed.9 To determine the total amount of revenue subject to sales tax, the Department used as a starting point the gross receipts figures as reported on Hancock's federal income tax returns for the years 1995 through 2000, inclusive.10 From these figures, the Department calculated the average monthly receipts for each of the six years in question (by dividing 12 into each respective year's gross sales revenue). It also computed an average annual gross sales figure (by dividing 6 into the sum of the known annual gross receipts), along with an average average-monthly sales amount (by dividing 6 into the sum of the average monthly receipts). Year Here are the relevant Gross Sales numbers: Avg. Monthly Sales 1995 $ 99,045 $ 8,253.75 1996 $113,973 $ 9,497.75 1997 $171,721 $14,310.08 1998 $169,961 $14,163.42 1999 $126,306 $10,525.50 2000 $154,253 $12,854.42 Average Annual Gross Sales: $139,210.00 Average Average-Monthly Sales: $ 11,600.82 The Department apparently acquired more specific information regarding monthly receipts for the 11-month period from January through November 2000. During this period, Hancock's gross receipts totaled $113,661.00.11 The Department determined, based on these figures, that the total tax due for this particular period was $6,861.41. Dividing 113,661 into 6,861.41, the Department derived a "percentage of error" of .060367. This "percentage of error" was effectively the tax rate because, as we have seen, the Department believed that Hancock had paid no taxes whatsoever. The "percentage of error" slightly exceeded 6 percent (the present state sales tax rate) due to the inclusion of some county taxes.12 The Department computed the total sales tax allegedly due and owing as follows. To determine the tax due per month for the 121 months comprising the periods from (a) June 1985 through December 1994 and (b) January through June 2001, for which there were no "known-sales" numbers, the Department applied the "percentage of error" (=tax rate) against the average average-monthly sales figure of $11,600.82. To determine the tax due per month for the years 1995 through 2000, the Department applied the "percentage of error" against each respective year's average monthly sales figure. The sum of these monthly figures equaled the total alleged tax liability. Here are the numbers: Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1985 — Dec 1994 (115 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 80,535.65 Jan (12 — Dec 1995 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1996 months) 9,497.7613 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan (12 — Dec 1997 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan (12 — Dec 1998 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1999 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan (12 — Dec 2000 months) 12,854.4314 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 135,159.47 In sum, the Department found that Hancock was liable for $134,337.17 in state sales taxes and $822.30 in County Taxes, see endnote 12, which amounts, when added together, equaled $135,159.47. Additionally, the Department found that Hancock owed small amounts of state use taxes in connection with several fixed assets. This aspect of the case received little attention, if any, at final hearing and accordingly will not be examined in great detail here. The following table summarizes the amounts that the Department claims are due and owing: Asset Transaction Date Tax Due Computer September 1995 229.12 Office refrigerator April 1997 24.00 Computer October 1998 72.00 Office Furniture December 1998 21.62 Printer May 1999 24.66 371.40 In January 2002, the Department notified Hancock that it intended to collect the alleged tax deficiencies just described, in the total principal amount of $135,530.87. In addition, the Department claimed $135,666.86 in interest through January 2, 2002, together with a total of $52,359.05 in penalties, making a grand total of $323,556.78. Hancock disputed the assessments and timely requested a formal administrative hearing. Ultimate Factual Determinations The factual question whether Hancock performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as the Department contends, is very close, at least based on the evidence presented. On a better record it might have been possible to answer this question with greater confidence——and, indeed, to obtain a different result. On this relatively limited record, however, the undersigned finds that the weight of the evidence tips ever so slightly in the Department's favor, primarily because it appears more likely than not that Hancock's clients were given a meaningful right to direct the use of the material personal property involved, namely the live plants and trees. Thus, while reasonable minds could differ, the undersigned finds that Hancock was engaging in the taxable business activity of leasing personal property. The evidence does not establish, however, and hence the undersigned does not find, that Hancock filed a grossly false or substantially incorrect return or made a substantial underpayment of tax. Likewise, Hancock did not file any fraudulent returns. Rather, Hancock properly filed returns through mid-1994, paying all of the sales and use taxes then due and owing. What Hancock failed to do was make all required tax payments after May 1994——a significant default, to be sure, but one that leaves him less liable, in fact, for back-taxes than the Department has contended. Hancock's decision to stop collecting and remitting sales taxes, moreover, was based not upon an intent to defraud but upon an honest, if mistaken, belief that the business of Action Plant Rental fell within the "decorator's exemption."15 Apart from any question of liability, the Department's assessment of the amount of state sales taxes and County Taxes allegedly due and owing for the period from June 1985 through December 1993 is clearly erroneous, for at least three reasons. First, the state sales tax was not six percent during that entire period, yet the Department has computed Hancock's alleged tax liability as if it were.16 Second, the Department did not make any adjustments to account for the time-value of money when it projected sales figures from 1995-2000 back as many as 15 years. It is commonly known, however, that dollars earned in the year 2000, for example, had less purchasing power than, say, 1985 dollars; thus, sales figures from 2000 must be discounted if a fair and reasonable comparison to 1985 is to be made. The Department's failure to reduce recent earnings to the then- present value of income derived from plant rentals in the earlier years of the audit period is tantamount to charging interest——which, of course, the Department has also assessed, separately. Finally, the Department's calculation assumed, incorrectly, that (a) Hancock's business had not changed during the entire 16-year audit period and (b) Hancock had never paid any sales taxes. In fact, until the end of 1993, Hancock derived income not only from his plant rental business but also from landscaping and plant sales; not only that, he paid sales taxes on the receipts from these activities, through May 1994. In sum, then, even if Hancock were liable for the taxes that allegedly accrued before 1994, the Department's figures for that period of the audit are simply too unreliable to be credited. Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1994 — Dec 1994 (7 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,902.17 Jan — Dec 1995 (12 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan — Dec 1996 (12 months) 9,497.7617 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan — Dec 1997 (12 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan — Dec 1998 (12 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan — Dec 1999 (12 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan — Dec 2000 (12 months) 12,854.4318 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 59,525.99 It is found, therefore, that Hancock owes state sales taxes and County Taxes in the following sums: Additionally Hancock must pay use taxes amounting to $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the total principal amount of taxes proved to be due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order directing Hancock to pay state sales taxes and County Taxes in the total amount of $59,525.99, plus state use taxes in the amount of $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the principal sum of back-taxes due and owing. In addition, Hancock should be ordered to pay interest and penalties on the unpaid taxes, in amounts to be determined by the Department in accordance with the methodologies reflected in the audit work papers that are included in the evidentiary record of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 7th day of January, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is a common carrier for the purpose of prorating taxes under Section 212.08(9)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 12A-1.064(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns Jumbo Interstate Trucking. Petitioner's principal place of business is located in Palm Coast, Florida. The Federal Highway Administration issued Permit No. MC326745 to Petitioner to operate as a contract carrier with a service date of October 17, 1997. Petitioner's federal permit authorizes him to engage in the transportation of property (except household goods) by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce. Common carriers transport cargo according to a rate schedule that applies to anyone in the general public. Contract carriers haul cargo according to market rates and pursuant to an arm's length contract that sets the mileage and freight rates with individual customers. At all times material to this case, Petitioner hauled goods in interstate commerce outside the State of Florida as a common carrier. He does not haul goods as a common carrier pursuant to a predetermined rate schedule or published tariffs. According to Petitioner, he negotiates his contracts as he goes along. Petitioner has never operated or filed an application to operate his business other than as a contract carrier. Additionally, his motor vehicles are not insured as common carriers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's request for a refund. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 10th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond Gunter Jumbo Interstate Trucking 45 Moody Drive Palm Coast, Florida 32137 R. Lynn Lovejoy, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the executive branch of the State of Florida. Mr. Crowell, prior to February, 1990, was employed as a career service employee of the Department for approximately 19 years. Mr. Crowell has worked for the State of Florida for approximately 24 years. Immediately prior to and during part of February, 1990, Mr. Crowell was employed as a Community Assistance Consultant with the Department's Community Development Block Grant Program (hereinafter referred to as the "Grant Program"). Wanda A. Jones, Planning Manager of the Grant Program, was Mr. Crowell's immediate supervisor at all times relevant to this proceeding. The Department has incorporated the provisions of Rule 22A-8.011, Florida Administrative Code, governing the use of leave, in the Department's Policies and Procedures No. 1109.01. Pursuant to Policies and Procedures No. 1109.01, Department employees are required to notify their supervisor of any illness and obtain approval of the use of annual leave. Mr. Crowell was counseled by Ms. Jones in January or February, 1989, concerning his failure to obtain authorization for use of sick leave each day that Mr. Crowell was sick. Ms. Jones also explained this requirement at two or three staff meetings. Mr. Crowell was aware of the Department's requirements concerning the use of leave. Mr. Crowell was required to travel as a part of his employment. Mr. Crowell traveled an average of two times per month. Mr. Crowell submitted an Authorization to Incur Travel Expense dated December 7, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "December 7, 1989, Request"), to the Department requesting authorization to travel on State business on December 13, 14 and 15, 1989. The December 7, 1989, Request was approved by the Department. Mr. Crowell indicated in the December 7, 1989, Request that "[p]ersonal car will be used for entire trip." Mr. Crowell did not own a motor vehicle during the period of time at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Crowell intended to rent an automobile, pay the rental charges himself and claim reimbursement only for mileage incurred in travel on State business. Mr. Crowell had been issued a Budget Rent-A-Car (hereinafter referred to as "Budget"), credit card by the Department on October 6, 1989. Mr. Crowell signed a Department form at the time the Budget credit card was issued acknowledging the following: that on the date above I received the above-described credit card; that I, by my signature hereon have acknowledged that I understand all policies and procedures governing the use of said card; and that I have been advised that abuse of the use of this card may result in dismissal from employment with this Department and possible prosecution under the laws of Florida. On December 13, 1989, Mr. Crowell rented an automobile from Budget. Mr. Crowell was given a Lincoln Town Car (hereinafter referred to as the "Lincoln") because of the unavailability of a smaller automobile. Mr. Crowell signed a rental agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Rental Agreement") for the Lincoln indicating that the rental fees were to be charged to the Department through the Budget credit card issued by the Department to Mr. Crowell. Pursuant to the Rental Agreement, Mr. Crowell was to rent the Lincoln for approximately three weeks, turning it in on January 3, 1990. The Rental Agreement listed the costs of renting the Lincoln for an hour, a day, a week or a month. Mr. Crowell submitted a Voucher for Reimbursement of Traveling Expenses dated December 19, 1989, to the Department for authorized travel on December 12-15, 1989. Mr. Crowell indicated that a "[p]ersonal car was used for entire trip" and he claimed reimbursement of $107.00 for mileage driven. During early January, 1990, Mr. Crowell went to a Budget office with the intent of returning the Lincoln he had rented on December 13, 1989. Mr. Crowell was told that he owed close to $600.00. Mr. Crowell had thought that he would owe approximately $375.00 and, therefore, had not brought enough money to pay the total rental charge. Mr. Crowell left without paying the rental charge or returning the Lincoln. On December 28, 1990, Mr. Crowell submitted three separate Authorization to Incur Travel Expense forms to the Department seeking approval of travel for State business in January and February, 1990. On the three forms "pov" was noted. Mr. Crowell used "pov" as an abbreviation for "privately owned vehicle." Mr. Crowell submitted a Voucher for Reimbursement of Traveling Expenses to the Department for two authorized trips for January, 1990. Mr. Crowell indicated that a "pov was used" on one of the vouchers and he claimed reimbursement for mileage driven on both forms. Mr. Crowell used the Lincoln he had rented on December 13, 1989, for the January, 1990, trips he was reimbursed for. Sometime during January, 1990, the Tallahassee branch manager of Budget, Russell Kennedy, became concerned that Mr. Crowell was late returning the Lincoln. Therefore, Mr. Kennedy contacted Mr. Crowell and inquired about when he intended to return the Lincoln. Mr. Crowell indicated that he would return the Lincoln on February 1, 1990. On January 30, 1990, the Department's personnel director, Mark Helms, was informed by the Director of the Housing and Community Development Division, the Division in which Mr. Crowell was employed, that he had been notified that Mr. Crowell had rented the Lincoln with his Department-issued credit card and that the Lincoln had not been returned or paid for. Mr. Helms contacted Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy informed Mr. Helms that Budget considered the Department to be liable for the rental of the Lincoln. Mr. Kennedy indicated that Mr. Crowell had agreed to return the Lincoln on February 1, 1990. Mr. Crowell did not return the Lincoln on February 1, 1990. Mr. Helms spoke with Mr. Kennedy on Monday, February 5, 1990, and was informed that Mr. Crowell had not returned the Lincoln. Mr. Helms informed the Division Director. On February 5, 1990, Ms. Jones was told by the Division Director to meet with Mr. Crowell and instruct him to resolve the problem he had created by renting the Lincoln with the Department-issued Budget credit card. Ms. Jones met with Mr. Crowell at approximately 3:00 p.m., Monday, February 5, 1990. Ms. Jones informed Mr. Crowell that the Department was concerned that he had rented the Lincoln using the Budget credit card issued to him by the Department because of the Department's potential liability for the rental. Ms. Jones informed Mr. Crowell that he had to resolve the problem he had created with Budget immediately. She suggested that, although she could not tell him how to use his leave time, he should consider taking time to take care of the matter. Mr. Crowell left the meeting and returned shortly thereafter with his time sheet. Mr. Crowell requested that Ms. Jones approve annual leave from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., February 5, 1990, and all day Tuesday, February 6, 1990. Ms. Jones approved Mr. Crowell's request. Mr. Crowell left work at approximately 3:30 p.m., February 5, 1990. Mr. Crowell did not return to work on February 6, 1990. On Wednesday, February 7, 1990, and Thursday, February 8, 1990, Mr. Crowell spoke by telephone to an employee of the Department that worked in another section and got the employee to leave a "Post-It" note on his door both days indicating "O.C./SL". Mr. Crowell did not report to work on February 7 or 8, 1990. Ms. Jones treated Mr. Crowell as having used sick leave for these two days. On February 8, 1990, Ms. Jones sent a letter to Mr. Crowell informing him that his failure to resolve the matter with Budget was a serious disciplinary matter. Ms. Jones did not attempt to telephone Mr. Crowell because he did not have a telephone. Ms. Jones did, however, telephone Cheryl Jamison, whom Ms. Jones believed to be Mr. Crowell's daughter-in-law. Ms. Jones left a message on an answering machine to have Mr. Crowell call her immediately. On Friday, February 9, 1990, and Monday, February 12, 1990, through Thursday, February 15, 1990, Mr. Crowell did not come to work, call in sick or otherwise inform the Department of the reason for his absence or obtain approval for his absence. Mr. Crowell has not returned to work at the Department since February 5, 1990. At the formal hearing Mr. Crowell testified that he did not inform Ms. Jones that he would not be at work on February 9, 1990, or thereafter because she had instructed him to not come back until he resolved the problem with Budget over the rental of the Lincoln. This testimony is inconsistent with Ms. Jones' testimony and Mr. Crowell's actions on February 5, 1990, and February 7 and 8, 1990. If Mr. Crowell had in fact been instructed not to return until he resolved the Budget problem and that he did not have to worry about following established procedures for absences, Mr. Crowell would not have gotten approval for annual leave for February 5 and 6, 1990, or informed the Department that he would not be at work on February 7 and 8, 1990, because he was sick. On February 12, 1990, Ms. Jones telephoned and spoke with Nathan Crowell, Mr. Crowell's son. Ms. Jones indicated that she needed to speak with Mr. Crowell. She was told that Mr. Crowell had been told that she was trying to contact him. Mr. Crowell received the letter sent by Ms. Jones on February 8, 1990. Mr. Crowell was also aware that Ms. Jones had called his son's telephone number attempting to get in touch with him. Mr. Crowell made no effort, however, to respond to Ms. Jones. The Division Director was informed by Ms. Jones on February 15, 1990, that Mr. Crowell had been absent for five days without authorization. The same day Mr. Helms received a memorandum from the Division Director recommending that Mr. Crowell be treated as having abandoned his employment with the Department. Mr. Helms prepared a letter for the Secretary's signature informing Mr. Crowell that the Department was treating Mr. Crowell that he had abandoned his position. At the time that the Department decided to treat Mr. Crowell as having abandoned his position, the Department was aware of efforts by Budget to contact Mr. Crowell and obtain a return of the Lincoln. Budget had sent a certified letter to Mr. Crowell on February 7, 1990, informing Mr. Crowell that criminal charges would be brought against him if he did not return the Lincoln. The return receipt was returned on February 13, 1990, signed by Mr. Crowell. Mr. Crowell still did not return the Lincoln. Mr. Kennedy had also driven by Mr. Crowell's residence several times during early February, 1990, looking for the Lincoln. The Lincoln was not found. The letter from the Secretary was sent to Mr. Crowell by certified mail, return receipt requested, on February 15, 1990. Mr. Crowell received the letter on February 22, 1990. Mr. Crowell returned the Lincoln to Budget on Sunday, February 18, 1990. Mr. Crowell did not pay for the rental of the Lincoln at that time. On February 27, 1990, Mr. Crowell telephoned Mr. Helms. This was his first contact with the Department since February 5, 1990. Mr. Crowell did not indicate that he had not abandoned his position or offer any explanation. Mr. Crowell merely asked Mr. Helms about continued insurance coverage and the payment for his accrued sick and annual leave. Mr. Crowell sent a letter to the Department of Administration dated March 6, 1990, contesting the Department's determination that he had abandoned his employment. On March 7, 1990, Mr. Crowell met with Mr. Helms and Barbara Jo Finer, a Department Senior Attorney. Mr. Crowell discussed payment of the Budget rental charges he had incurred with the payment he was to receive for his unused annual leave as a result of his termination of employment. Budget was paid the rental charges incurred by Mr. Crowell for use of the Lincoln on April 16, 1990. Budget was paid $1,734.03 of Mr. Crowell's payment from the State of Florida for his unused leave. In addition to the inconsistencies in Mr. Crowell's testimony described in Finding of Fact 29, Mr. Crowell evidenced a lack of credibility while testifying on two other matters. First, Mr. Crowell testified at the formal hearing that he did not receive a telephone call from a representative of Budget. This testimony is contrary to Mr. Crowell's testimony during his deposition taken on June 18, 1990. Secondly, Mr. Crowell testified that he was not notified that his deposition was available to read until 5:00 p.m., Thursday, July 5, 1990. This testimony was contradicted by the office manager of Accurate Stenotype Reporters, the firm which had the deposition prepared.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order concluding that Oscar Crowell abandoned his position of employment with the Department and dismissing the petition in this case with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 28th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Crowell's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Page I: 1st Paragraph 32. 2nd Paragraph Hereby accepted. 3rd Paragraph Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Page II: Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is accepted. The rest of the paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is accepted. The rest of the paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Page III: 1st paragraph Hereby accepted. Although the Department did take the position that it was not liable for the total rental charge incurred by Mr. Crowell for use of the Lincoln, Budget was taking the position that the Department was liable. Therefore, there remained a potential liability which the Department was concerned with. 2nd paragraph Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 3rd paragraph Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4th paragraph Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5th paragraph (including part of this paragraph which appears on page IV) Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Page IV: 1st full paragraph Not relevant to this proceeding and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 2nd paragraph The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Even if Ms. Jones had told Mr. Crowell to resolve the problem before returning to work, it was unreasonable for Mr. Crowell to not return to work for almost two weeks without obtaining authorization for such an extended absence. The rest of the proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 3rd paragraph Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant or supported by the weight of the evidence. (including part of this paragraph which appears on page V) Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Page V: st paragraph Hereby accepted. nd paragraph The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Crowell was directed to leave and not return. The rest of this paragraph has been accepted in Finding of Fact 26. rd paragraph Not supported by the weight of the evidence. th paragraph Not supported by the weight of the evidence and argument. Page VI: 1st paragraph Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 2nd paragraph Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 3rd paragraph The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4th paragraph 2. Except for the first sentence, these proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5th paragraph This paragraph is Mr. Crowell's recommendation and not a finding of fact. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2, 27 and 32. 2 1-2. 3 4. 4 3. 5 7. 6 Hereby accepted. 7 5. 8 6. 9 Hereby accepted. 10 12, 23-24. 11 24. 26. The last four sentences are not relevant to this proceeding. The Department treated Mr. Crowell as having taken sick leave on February 7 and 8, 1990. The Department did not treat Mr. Crowell as being absent without authorization on those days. Hereby accepted. 14-15 27. 16 30. 17-18 28. 19 31. 20 Hereby accepted. 21 36. 22 32 and 34. The first two sentences are hereby accepted. The rest of this proposed finding of fact is not relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Crowell requested a formal hearing to contest the Department's decision by letter dated March 6, 1990. His failure to discuss the matter after that date, therefore, does not support a conclusion that Mr. Crowell was abandoning his employment. 38. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding for the same reasons the last part of proposed finding of fact 23 is not relevant. See 29. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. It is not clear what Mr. Crowell meant. See 5. Hereby accepted. Subparagraph (b) does not support a conclusion that Mr. Crowell abandoned his position. 29 12. 30 20. 31 23. 32 33. 33-34 33. 35 12, 14, 17-18 and 35. 36 Hereby accepted. 37-44 and 47 Mr. Crowell did make the statements referred to in these proposed findings of fact and they are not consistent. As the trier of fact, I do not find that Mr. Crowell's credibility was called into question by these inconsistencies. 45-46 40. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Crowell 1038 Preston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 G. Steven Pfeiffer General Counsel Barbara Jo Finer Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners James I. McKee and James Cone are registered physical therapists licensed in Florida under Chapter 486, Florida Statutes. Petitioners McKee and Cone are engaged in the private practice of providing physical therapy services. Physical therapy is the treatment of injured or crippled individuals through physical agents such as heat, ultrasound and electrical stimulation treatments, and therapeutic exercise. Physical therapy patients are referred to private practitioners such as Petitioners by prescription from physicians. Petitioners, as a substantial part of their practices, treat workers who have been injured in job-related accidents and receive payment for their services from workers' compensation insurance carriers. Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the workers' compensation program in Florida. Respondent has proposed Rules 38F- 7.01 through 38F-7.03 and 38F-7.10 through 38F-7.13 for adoption. These proposed rules constitute the proposed fee schedule for the workers' compensation program, and include a proposed fee schedule for physical therapy services. The proposed fee schedule was presented to the Respondent by a three- member panel consisting of the Secretary of Labor and Employment Security, the State Insurance Commissioner, and the State Medical Consultant of the Division of Workers' Compensation. Respondent's rules have not in the past included a fee schedule for physical therapy services provided by practitioners such as Petitioners McKee and Cone. Rather, such services have been compensated on the basis of a case- by-case determination of the charges that prevail in the same community for similar treatment of injured persons of like standard of living. The proposed fee schedule would set maximum limits for such fees. The proposed fee schedule would have applicability statewide. Different fee schedules for different geographic locations have not been proposed. Petitioners McKee and Cone presently charge higher fees for injured workers and receive more compensation than they would receive under the fee schedule set out in the proposed rules. Furthermore, prevailing fees charged by physical therapists are generally higher than the maximum fees set out in the proposed rules. There is a statistically significant difference in fees for physical therapy services that are charged in different areas of the state. Fees for services in Southeast Florida are uniformly higher than fees for the same services in other areas of the state. The three-member panel which proposed the fee schedule for physical therapy services considered the present fee schedule, which does not set maximum charges for physical therapy services; a schedule utilized under the medicare program for physical therapy services; and a schedule set out in a document prepared by the Florida Medical Association, Inc., entitled "1975 Florida Relative Value Studies." No consideration was given to setting different fees in different areas of the state. The medicare schedule considered by the panel sets different rates for different areas of the state. The panel utilized a schedule in the mid-range from the medicare schedule in arriving at its proposed schedule. Respondent promulgated an economic impact statement in support of the proposed rules. The economic impact statement does not contain any estimate of the economic impact of the proposed fee schedules upon physical therapists such as Petitioners . The panel which proposed the schedules did hear objections from various physical therapists, but did not change its proposed schedule in response. The proposed schedule has a significant economic impact upon physical therapists because there has not been a maximum fee schedule applied to physical therapists in the past. Furthermore, the schedule would allow less compensation to such therapists than has typically been allowed in the past.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether supplemental payments made to the Petitioner by Brevard Community College constitute creditable compensation for purposes of determining retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact From 1970 until his retirement in June 1998, Brevard Community College employed Stephen J. Megregian at an executive level. The State of Florida, Division of Retirement, manages and oversees operation of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) in which Brevard Community College (BCC) participates. In June 1990, the college adopted an Employee Benefit Plan for BCC Executive Employees. The provisions of the plan covered Mr. Megregian, an executive employee. In fact, Mr. Megregian drafted the plan, which was adopted by the college's Board of Trustees. The executive benefit plan included a severance pay benefit for plan participants. The severance benefit was calculated according to a formula using the employee's daily base pay as multiplied by the sum of "benefit days." Benefit days were earned according to employment longevity. A "severance day" calculation determined the amount of severance pay a departing employee would receive. Apparently, at some point in 1994, participants in the FRS learned that the Division of Retirement would exclude some types of compensation, including severance pay, from the "creditable compensation" used to determine retirement benefits. In June 1995, the college amended the plan to provide a severance pay "opt-out" provision to plan participants. The provision entitled plan participants who were within five years of eligibility for FRS retirement benefits to "opt-out" of the severance package and instead immediately begin to receive supplemental payments. Mr. Megregian drafted the "opt-out" provision, which was adopted by the college board. The decision to "opt-out" was irrevocable. A plan participant could not change his or her mind and take the severance package once the "opt-out" decision was made. The supplemental payments were calculated based upon the "severance days" that the employee would have otherwise earned during the year. The payments were made along with the employee's salary payment. The "opt-out" plan did not require a participant to retire after the fifth year of receiving the supplemental payment. The Petitioner asserts that the creation of the "opt- out" provision was in accordance with information provided by the Division of Retirement. There is no evidence that the Division of Retirement provided any information suggesting that the "opt-out" provision would result in an increase in creditable compensation for purposes of determining FRS benefits, or that the "opt-out" provision was an acceptable method of avoiding the severance pay exclusion. There is no evidence that, prior to March of 1998, the college specifically sought any direction or advice from the Division of Retirement as to the supplemental payments made to employees under the "opt-out" provision. The evidence as to why the college did not simply increase base salaries for employees to whom supplemental payments were being made is unclear. There was testimony that the plan was designed to avoid unidentified tax consequences. There was also testimony that the supplemental plan was designed to avoid increasing some employees base salaries beyond the percentage increases awarded to other employees. There was apparently some concern as to the impact the supplemental payments would have on other college employees who were not receiving the additional funds. There is no evidence that the Petitioner performed any additional duties on the college's behalf in exchange for the supplemental payments. The Petitioner was eligible to participate in the "opt- out" plan beginning in the college's 1995-1996 fiscal year, and he elected to do so. As a result of his election, supplemental payments were made in amounts as follows: Fiscal Year 1995-1996, $7,938.46. Fiscal Year 1996-1997, $8,147.13. Fiscal Year 1997-1998, $8,395.40. On March 21, 1998, Brevard Community College requested clarification from the Division of Retirement as to how the supplemental payments would affect a plan participant's benefit. On April 30, 1998, the Division of Retirement notified the college that the supplemental payments would not be included within the calculation of creditable compensation. The Petitioner retired from his employment at Brevard Community College on June 30, 1998. The Petitioner is presently entitled to retirement benefits under the FRS. The Division calculates FRS retirement benefits based on "creditable compensation" paid to an employee during the five years in which an employee's compensation is highest. Some or all of the three years during which the Petitioner received supplemental payments are included in the calculation of his creditable compensation. The evidence fails to establish that the supplemental payments made to the Petitioner should be included within the creditable compensation upon which FRS benefits are calculated. Under the statutes and rules governing FRS benefit determinations, the supplemental payments made to the Petitioner are "bonuses" and are excluded from the "creditable compensation" calculation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that supplemental payments made to Stephen J. Megregian are bonus payments and are excluded from calculation of creditable compensation for FRS benefit purposes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 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 2nd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Pearson, Esquire Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A. Post Office Box 2346 Orlando, Florida 32802-2346 Robert B. Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for sales and use taxes, penalties, and interest and, if so, how much.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operated a bar and grill in Punta Gorda that served beer, wine, liquor, and food at retail. In the course of business, Petitioner collected tax from the customers. Petitioner reported to Respondent sales tax collections for May 1996, November 1996, March 1997, November 1997, and December 1997. In connection with these collections, Petitioner remitted to Respondent seven checks representing the net tax due Respondent. These checks totaled $6700.64. The bank on which the checks were drawn dishonored them. The remittance of net sales tax proceeds by payment through checks that are later dishonored implies a fraudulent, willful intent to evade the payment of these sums. Respondent has issued five warrants concerning the unremitted taxes, penalties, and interest. Warrant 953620064 shows that Petitioner owes $1171 in sales tax remittances for the five months from July through November 1995. With penalties and interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $1832.37. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $0.35. Warrant 467049 shows that Petitioner owes $2940.25 in sales tax remittances for the following months: April 1996, October 1996, December 1996, and January 1997. Petitioner purportedly paid each of these remittances with five (two in January) checks that were later dishonored. With penalties, including the 100 percent penalty for fraud, and interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $7480.12. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $0.95. Warrant 971680037 shows that Petitioner owes $1301.85 in sales tax remittances for the following months: December 1995, June 1996, July 1996, September 1996, November 1996, and February 1997. With penalties and interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $2669.69. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $0.43. Warrant 471481 shows that Petitioner owes $2912.48 in sales tax remittances for October and November 1997, for which Petitioner made remittances with two dishonored checks. With penalties, including the 100 percent penalty, and interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $6751.49. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $0.95. Warrant 989840034 shows that Petitioner owes $8077.76 in sales tax remittances for the following months: August 1997, September 1997, December 1997, January 1998, and February 1998. With interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $8285.21. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $2.65. Totaling the five warrants, Petitioner owes a total of $27,018.88 in taxes, penalties, and interest through June 5, 1998, and $5.33 per day for each ensuing day until the amount is paid.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order determining that Petitioner owes $27,018.88 in taxes, penalties, and interest through June 5, 1998, and $5.33 per day for each ensuing day until the amount is paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John N. Upchurch Nicholas Bykowsky Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Judith Crown, President Tombstone, Inc. Suite P-50 1200 West Retta Esplanade Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
The Issue The issues are: Whether Latin America Sales made unreported sales which became subject to sales tax because they went unreported? Are purchases of inventory by Latin America Sales from overseas vendors subject to state use tax while temporarily warehoused in Miami and before export? Are purchases of inventory of Latin America Sales subject to state use tax because of its failure to register as a dealer, although its purchases would be exempt had it registered?
Findings Of Fact The Assessments The Department of Revenue assessed sales and use tax against Latin America Sales International for the period February 1, 1985 to June 30, 1987, in the amount of $114,682.88, a penalty of $28,670.72, and interest of $19,704.39, for a total of $163,057.99. It also assessed sales and use tax against the taxpayer for the period July 1, 1987 to January 31, 1988, in the amount of $72,374.71, a penalty of $18,093.68, and interest of $4,655.37, for a total of $95,123.76. These taxes were assessed for three reasons, failure to pay sales tax, failure to pay use tax and failure to pay tax due on rentals of space used to store sewing machine inventory in Florida. Sales Tax Latin America Sales International, Inc., is a Florida Corporation organized in 1975 by Cuban immigrants Ricardo and Elsie Miranda. It was formed to avail itself of a benefit created by the Internal Revenue Code for companies which qualified as western hemisphere trading corporations. Under 26 U.S.C. Section 921, a substantial tax reduction was available to United States corporations which made at least 95% of their sales to buyers outside of the United States, and within the western hemisphere. Mr. and Mrs. Miranda and a Mr. Ricardo Gomez had been operating a business known as Richards Sewing Machines Company, which sold industrial sewing machines both domestically and in Central American countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and in Jamaica. They bought the industrial sewing machines in Taiwan and Italy. To take advantage of the deduction available to a western hemisphere trading corporation, Mr. and Mrs. Miranda incorporated Latin America Sales International, Inc. (Latin America). On its federal corporate income tax returns which were prepared by its certified public accountant, Eugene Drascher, Latin America obtained a deduction for its activities as a western hemisphere trading corporation for its fiscal years ending October 31, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980. Ultimately, this federal deduction was phased out. Richards Sewing Machines had been registered properly with the Florida Department of Revenue as a dealer and a payor of sales and use taxes, but no similar registration was filed for Latin America when it was formed. Mr. Drascher advised Mr. and Mrs. Miranda that the sales by Latin America would be made outside the United States, and consequently Florida was not entitled to collect sales tax from the foreign buyer, and that Latin America was only involved in importing and exporting industrial sewing machine inventory for resale, so the corporation was not responsible to pay use tax to the State of Florida on those sewing machines in its inventory. In essence, the CPA advised Mr. and Mrs. Miranda that there were no reports concerning sales and use tax to be filed and no reportable sales or use tax due from Latin America. This advice about reports was erroneous, and the failure of Latin America to register as a dealer has serious financial consequences with respect to liability for use tax. To allow persons claiming to engage in tax exempt sales to file no returns or to avoid registration entirely would provide a means of tax evasion which could be easily abused. All vendors must register and file tax returns so the Department of Revenue will be aware the vendor is in business and so the Department can audit to verify claims that sales are made in a way which is tax exempt. Some accomodations are made for tax exempt export sales; for instance, vendors may apply to file their returns semi-annually or annually rather than monthly. After the tax deduction available to western hemisphere trading corporations was phased out, Mr. and Mrs. Miranda continued to use Latin America to make foreign sales because the corporation had made a name for itself in the export market. In essence, Latin America had built up good will with its foreign customers. Latin America continued to engage only in export sales; it made no domestic sales within the United States or the State of Florida, except sales to other exporters. On those few occasions, Latin America obtained an appropriate resale certificate from the buyer/exporter. Latin America never filed any returns with the Florida Department of Revenue with respect to its inventory purchased from overseas vendors in Taiwan or Italy. Even if exempt, these purchases should have been reported as property held for export on schedule B of an annual sales tax return, under a dealer registration number Latin America should have obtained. (Tr. 118) Latin America received shipments of containers of sewing machines at the Miami free port, but because rent there was so expensive, Latin America transferred the inventory to a warehouse in Miami, after a customs broker paid the applicable federal customs duties on behalf of Latin America. Latin America never registered as an exporter with the State of Florida. Latin America never filed any returns with respect to gross sales made of its inventory stored in Miami which it exported to customers in the Caribbean or Central America. These sales should have been reported to the Department of Revenue under a dealer registration number as exempt sales. (Tr. 118) Richards Sewing Machines Company, which handled domestic sales and which was appropriately registered with the Department of Revenue, made proper and timely filings of all Florida Department of Revenue sales tax returns, Forms DR-15. The Department of Revenue initially audited the sales tax payments of Richards Sewing Machines, and the results of that audit are not at issue here directly. The Mirandas maintained their invoices in alphabetical order by vendor, so that invoices for Richards Sewing Machines and Latin America were physically located in the same file cabinet, although it would be obvious to the Mirandas from the face of the invoice whether the sale was one made by Richards Sewing Machine (a domestic sale), or Latin America (an export sale).1 Similarly, a single journal was used by Ms. Miranda to record the dollar amount of sales by both corporations. Each entry contained the purchaser, the sale date, the invoice number, the total amount of the sale, and if tax were collected on that sale, the amount of tax. Mrs. Miranda then used that journal to file on Form DR-15 with the Department of Revenue the gross amount of sales, taxable sales, and remit the tax collected by Richards Sewing Machines. No such filings were made by Latin America because the Mirandas had been advised by their accountant that no sales tax was due on export sales and none had been collected. Actually, returns showing that all sales were exempt should have been filed. See, Finding 7, above. In performing the audit of Richards Sewing Machines, the Department's auditors used that corporation's United States Corporate Income Tax Return, IRS Form 1120, for the applicable years, and compared the gross sales reported on those forms to the federal government with the amount of gross sales Richards Sewing Machines had reported monthly to the State of Florida on its Florida Sales and Use Tax Form, Form DR-15. The gross sales shown on the federal returns, Form 1120, for Richards Sewing Machines were 7.49 million dollars over the three years of the audit (1984, 1985 and 1986). Over the same period, Richards Sewing Machines had shown gross sales on Florida Department of Revenue Forms DR-15 of 7.46 million dollars. There was a $33,000 discrepancy, amounting to less than 1/2 of one percent. The Department's auditor never found any evidence that any sales made by Latin America failed to have attached a resale certificate, or a bill of lading showing that the machinery or parts sold were shipped outside the United States (Tr. 45, 110-11, 126, 129-30). The actual invoices, resale certificates and bills of lading have been destroyed. After the completion of the audit on Richards Sewing Machines, the auditor told Mrs. Miranda there was no further need to keep those records, and relying on that advice, Mrs. Miranda disposed of the records (Tr. 84-5). The Department never contested that this advice was given to Mrs. Miranda. Due to the commingling of the invoices and the sales journal for Richards Sewing Machines and Latin America, the auditor for the Florida Department of Revenue decided to audit Latin America, and received authorization to do so. The auditor believed that the total sales tax owed by these two separate legal entities had been combined and reported together on one Florida Department of Revenue Form DR-15, but separate Federal Income Tax Returns, Form 1120, had been filed for each of the two companies. She believed that the total gross sales for both companies on the federal tax returns should have equalled the amount shown on the DR-15s filed with Florida by Richards Sewing Machines. The auditor then determined that a percentage of sales should be computed for each year in order to prorate the sales reported on the DR-15s for each company, Richards Sewing Machines and Latin America. The methodology used was that the total sales reported on the Federal Forms 1120 filed by Richard Sewing Machines and Latin America for each of their fiscal years was prorated to a calendar year, to derive a monthly average gross sales for each entity. (Richards and Latin America had different fiscal years). The average was then multiplied by the applicable number of months in each calendar year to arrive at the annual sales total for each company. The estimated sales for each company were then divided by the total sales for both companies to obtain the percentage of sales for each company. Latin America's percentage was then applied to the gross sales report of the monthly DR-15s to determine its estimated gross sales for each month. (Department Exhibit 1, Audit Report, Page 9.) The monthly average of gross sales derived from Latin America's IRS Form 1120, was compared with its estimated monthly gross sales reported on the DR-15. For each month Latin America reported higher gross sales based on its IRS form, the difference was treated as unreported Florida sales and taxed at 5%. There is no logical reason for the Department to have engaged in its proration calculations. There is no credible evidence that any sales by Latin America to its export customers were subject to sales tax in Florida. Mrs. Miranda had prepared a list for the auditor which separated all invoices to demonstrate that all sales by Latin America were export sales. Appropriate bills of lading or certificates of resale for sales by Latin America were in the files. There is no reasonable basis to accept the Department's contention that State Form DR-15s filed by Richards Sewing Machines reflect combined sales figures for both Latin America and Richards Sewing Machines. The Department makes its argument because using the sales journal kept by Mrs. Miranda, the amount of sales tax due according to the journal is the same amount recorded on the DR-15s, but Richards Sewing Machines reported $33,000 more in sales to the federal government. From that the Department's witnesses somehow infer that the DR-15s reflected sales from both companies. The more reasonable inference here, however, is that the figures in the sales journal and DR-15 forms match because all sales by Latin America were foreign sales on which no tax was due, no tax was collected, and no tax was carried on the sales journal. When the amount of sales tax collected was computed from the sales journal, and reported by Mrs. Miranda on the State DR-15, that figure dealt solely with sales by Richards Sewing Machines. To the extent there is any discrepancy in the total sales Richards Sewing Machines reported to the State of Florida and to the Federal Government on Federal Form 1120, that discrepancy is due to a bookkeeping error. A small amount of additional tax was due on sales by Richards Sewing Machines in the years 1984 to 1986 ($33,000 times 5% or about $1,500). The evidence does not support an inference that taxable sales from both corporations were combined in the sales journal kept by Mrs. Miranda, and were then reported as a lump sum figure on the DR-15 filed by Richards Sewing Machines. The Department argues that its proration process did not tax Latin America for sales which were reported, because the Department agreed to recognize proper bills of lading or certificates of resale from customers of Latin America as justification for not collecting sales tax. It does, however, believe that tax should be assessed against Latin America for unreported sales, i.e., on the gross sales derived from its IRS Form 1120. Because the evidence is persuasive that Latin America made no sales which were taxable in Florida, the Department's argument is rejected as lacking a factual basis. All sales by Latin America were to exporters who gave a resale certificate to Latin America, or to foreign purchasers who provided an appropriate bill of lading showing that the material was exported from the State of Florida. It is true, however, that Latin America was required to file information returns reporting all of its sales, both gross and exempt. Its report would have shown all sales were exempt, and no tax was due. The mere failure to have filed the report does not make those export sales taxable. Use Tax Use tax is due for two reasons. Latin America made purchases of sewing machines and equipment from foreign manufacturers in Taiwan and Italy. It imported those machines and parts into the United States to an airport free zone. The machines and parts then cleared customs and were moved to a warehouse in Miami at 2303 Northwest 2nd Avenue, which interrupted the export process. Secondly, the failure of Latin America to have registered as a dealer has an important affect on its liability for use tax. Because it was never registered as a dealer during the audit period, it was impossible for Latin America to execute and deliver a certificate of resale to its Taiwanese and Italian suppliers of the industrial sewing machines it received and warehoused in Miami. Latin America introduced no proof that it was already contractually obligated to sell its inventory overseas at the time it was delivered to the free zone, or when it was removed from the free zone. Therefore, when Latin America removed the industrial sewing machines or parts from the airport free zone and stored them in its warehouse at 2303 Northwest 2nd Avenue in Miami, it engaged in a taxable event. The bills of lading showing eventual export of its inventory are insufficient to avoid the use tax, for "tax will apply if the property is diverted in transit to the purchaser," Rule 12A-1.064(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Under use tax law, removing those sewing machines from the stream of international commerce subjected them to use tax, even though Latin America may have harbored a subjective intent of ultimately reselling them to foreign purchasers in the Caribbean and Central America. Moreover, by failing to file as a dealer, Latin America also failed to report its purchases from its Taiwanese and Italian suppliers as exempt sales for which use tax was not due on schedule B of an annual return. It should have filed as a dealer engaged in resale. That failure to file a return is not the reason use tax is due, however. Latin America may be assessed use tax because it was not a registered dealer, took possessions of the sewing machines in Florida, and was unable to give a valid dealer's certificate of resale to its Taiwanese and Italian suppliers because it had never registered as a dealer. The tax is due at the rate of 5% on purchases made from its suppliers beginning February 1, 1985 to January 31, 1988, plus interest. See audit report, page 16- 17, Schedule B. Penalty There is no reason to assess any penalty on the use tax due in this case. The tax payer's failure to register as a dealer or to file information returns was based on the advice of a CPA, and that advice was facially reasonable. The Department is not required to impose a penalty if the applicable penalty, here 25% of the tax due, "would be too severe or unjust." Rule 12A-1.056(9)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Had Latin America registered as a dealer and given its suppliers a certificate of resale, no tax at all may have been due. There is no indication of some intent to evade a tax. Rather, laxness of the tax payer has rendered a transaction otherwise tax free fully taxable. Payment of the tax and interest is penalty enough. Commercial Rental Latin America offered no evidence with respect to the assessment the Department made for taxes due on commercial rentals. The amount involved is small, for the period November 1985 through June 1987, the tax due is $184.16.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing use tax on inventory imported into Florida, plus interest and for tax due on commercial rentals, with interest. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 30th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-0136 Rulings on proposals by Latin America: Discussed in Findings 4, 22 and 25. There is no credible evidence that Latin America ever actually sold sewing machines to Richards Sewing Machines for resale in the domestic market. There was, however, no legal impediment to doing so. Covered in paragraph 7, 8 and 11. Covered in Findings 17-19. Covered in Finding 10. The proposed findings based on materials which may have been produced in response to the Department's first request for production of documents have no bearing on this case, for they were not introduced into evidence at the final hearing. The testimony that all sales by Latin America were for export or to other exporters has been accepted. Rulings on proposals by the Department: Covered in Finding 1. Covered in Finding 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 17, although both corporations did file their own Form 1120s. The methodology is described in Finding 18. The methodology is described in Finding 18. Rejected because State Form DR-15 did not reflect combined sales figures. See, Findings 19 and 20. Rejected. See, Finding 21, although it is true that Latin America was not registered as a dealer, see, Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Findings 9 and 10. Adopted in Findings 9, 24 and 25. Adopted in Finding 24. Copies furnished: Mark R. Vogel, Esquire 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami Center, Suite 880 Miami, FL 33131 Matt Goldman, Esquire 1001 South Bayshore Drive Suite 1712 Miami, FL 33131 Linda Miklowitz, Esquire Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 William D. Moore, General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 J. Thomas Herndon, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
The Issue Whether there is probable cause for Petitioner to bring an action against Respondents for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act?
Findings Of Fact Respondents sell used cars in Pensacola, about 500 a year. On or about June 19, 1981, when Fannie Mae Tunstall bought a '76 Buick LeSabre from Fairfield Motors, Inc. (Fairfield), she dealt with Elaine Owens Atkins, who is Fairfield's general manager, secretary-treasurer and a six-year employee. The installment sales contract specified an annual percentage rate of 29.64 percent, and was stamped with the legend, "MINIMUM $25 REPO OR COLLECTION FEE." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Ms. Tunstall told Ms. Atkins the payments were too much but signed the papers anyway, and did so without reading them, although Ms. Atkins had told her to read them. The payments did indeed prove too much and Ms. Tunstall fell behind. She was 13 days late with a payment in November of 1981, but Ms. Tunstall and Ms. Atkins had discussed the matter and Fairfield agreed to accept the payment late. Fairfield accepted other payments late, but arranged to have Willie Easley (formerly a singer and now a minister as well as a repossessor of cars) take possession of the Quick early in the morning of January 10, 1983, and drive it away. Ms. Tunstall had failed to make the monthly payment due December 30, 1982. Ms. Atkins had telephoned her once and gotten no answer. Later on January 10, 1983, Fairfield agreed to return the car in exchange for December's payment, another payment in advance, a six dollar late fee and a $100 repossession fee. Ms. Tunstall paid the entire balance Fairfield claimed to be owed and retrieved the car. Linda Louise LaCoste and her husband Ronnie have bought several cars from Fairfield, including a 1976 Chevrolet Suburban Mr. LaCoste bought on February 7, 1983, under an installment agreement calling for interest at an annual percentage rate in excess of 30 percent. The "cash price" was $3,459.75, and the "total sale price" was $4,613.15. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. The LaCostes understood from prior dealings that their agreement required Mr. LaCoste to maintain insurance on the vehicle, and Mr. LaCoste contracted with Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) for appropriate coverage. Allstate sent Fairfield a notice of cancellation for nonpayment of premium effective 12:01 A.M. April 4, 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. At 11:25 A.M. on April 4, 1983, Allstate accepted the premium Ronnie LaCoste offered in order to reinstate the policy, No. 441361747, and Allstate's Chirstine Smith also wrote a new policy to be sure there would be coverage. Ms. Smith told Fairfield that insurance was in force on April 4, 1983. On April 20, 1983, Allstate issued another notice of cancellation for nonpayment of premium on policy No. 441361747, effective 12:01 A.M. May 4, 1983. At ten minutes past three o'clock on the afternoon of May 4, 1983, Mr. LaCoste's Chevrolet Suburban was repossessed at Fairfield's instance on account of the apparent lapse of insurance. Mrs. LaCoste and here sister appeared promptly at Fairfield's place of business and tendered payment due that day. All prior payments to Fairfield were current. When Mrs. Atkins refused payment, Mrs. LaCoste and here sister protested with such vehemence that a Fairfield employee called the sheriff's office. According to Fairfield's contemporaneous records, Fairfield employees ("we") tried to give Mrs. LaCoste a letter "advising vehichle [sic] would be held for 10 days" (i.e., that it would be sold thereafter) but "she refused to accept a copy." Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. At hearing, Ms. Atkins conceded that she had not mailed a copy of the letter to Mr. LaCoste but testified that Mrs. LaCoste accepted a copy after refusing to take it initially. Mrs. LaCoste denied that she ever received the letter, and her version has been credited. On May 7, 1983, Fairfield received another communication from Allstate. Whether insurance coverage in fact lapsed on May 4, 1983 was not clear from the record. On May 17, 1983, Fairfield sold the Chevrolet Suburban for $2,050.00. Carolyn V. Kosmas purchased a 1978 Ford LTD II from Fairfield and made a downpayment of $550.00 on June 2, 1983. Under the terms of the installment sale contract, which called for an annual percentage rate in excess of 29 percent, she was to begin seventy dollar ($70.00) biweekly payments on June 22, 1983. At the time of the sales of the Ford to Ms. Kosmas on June 2, 1983, Fairfield asked for credit information about her fiance as well as about herself. On June 24, 1983, she appeared at Fairfield's place of business and tendered not only the payment due June 22 but also the payment due July 6, a total of $140.00 in cash. Ms. Atkins refused to accept the money, telling her that her references had not panned out, and asked her to surrender the keys to the car and gather up her personal effects. Ms. Kosmas made no secret of her opinion that she was not being treated fairly, but, crying and afraid, eventually agreed to treat the transaction as a rental and accepted a refund of $104.39 on that basis. Ms. Atkins "advised if she gave me another background sheet, that I could verify, I would renegotiate with her," Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, but Ms. Kosmas told Ms. Atkins that she had lost her job at West Florida Hospital and the renegotiation eventuated in the retroactive lease. Respondent Pearl Allen was present on June 24, 1983, and took the car keys from her. It was also he who wrote her on June 27, 1983 that the 1978 Ford LTD II would be privately sold on July 6, 1983. She did not appear when and where she was told the sale would occur. The Ford was in fact sold at auction in Montgomery, Alabama, on July 19, 1983. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. Mary Lee Hobbs' husband Forace paid Fairfield $800.00 down on a 1977 Oldsmobile 98 on February 27, 1982, agreeing to maintain insurance on the car until paid for, and to pay the unpaid principal balance of $4134.25 over a two and a half year period together with interest at an annual percentage rate of 29.79. Stamped on the contract was the legend, "MINIMUM $25 REPO OR COLLECTION FEE." In part, the installment sale contract read: * NOTE: DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW, Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 (reduced in size), has been omitted from this ACCESS Document. For review, contact the Division's Clerk's Office. All payments were current when, at about half past five o'clock on the morning of November 1, 1983, Fairfield's agents used a wrecker to remove the Oldsmobile, damaging the Hobbses' porch in the process. Fairfield acted because it received notice of cancellation or nonrenewal of the insurance policy that Hobbs maintained on the car. Typed on the form notice as the effective date of cancellation was November 29, 1983. Someone has written in ink "should be 10-29." In fact the insurance policy never lapsed. According to Fairfield's records, they received conflicting information, on October 29, 1983, about whether an insurance premium had been paid. The Hobbses' 27-year old "daughter said they p[ai]d--Conway Spence said they did not pay." Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. This was the same day Mr. Spence, an insurance agent, erroneously informed Fairfield that the effective date of expiration "should be 10-29." Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. Even after Mr. Spence's error was known to it, Fairfield refused to return the car without payment of a $75.00 "repossession fee," and also refused to let the Hobbs children return with the laundry they were sent to fetch from the trunk of the car. It was the refusal to give up the dirty laundry that sent Mrs. Hobbs to the authorities. Karel Jerome Bell bought a 1977 Delta 88 Oldsmobile from Fair field on July 22, 1982, under an installment sale contract calling for two "pick up notes" to be paid in August of 1982 and biweekly payments of $125.00 thereafter until payments reached a total of $4161.212. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. The "pick up notes," each for $220.00 were due August 7 and 21, 1982, and were not treated as down payments on the installment sale form. After reducing his indebtedness to $1221.21, Mr. Bell fell two payments behind, and Fairfield repossessed the Oldsmobile on July 7, 1983. The same day Fairfield wrote Mr. Bell that it intended to sell his car, but not time or date was specified. On July 8, 1983, Mr. Bell called and asked whether he could continue making payments while the car on the lot. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Fairfield's Ms. Gilstrap accepted $100.00 from Mr. Bell on July 12, 1983, which she applied to satisfy a reposession fee of $100.00. On the Bell contract, too, had been stamped, "MINIMUM $25 REPO OR COLLECTION FEE." Ms. Gilstrap "told him as long as he paid something something regularly on the account, I felt sure we would hold it for him." Mr. Bell indicated he would pay an additional $125.00 the following Friday and Ms. Gilstrap made a notation to this effect in his file, where she also wrote, "Pls. don't sell he intends to pay for." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. Bell had not made any further payment when, on July 30, 1983, without notice to Mr. Bell, Fairfield sold the car for $1,000.00 to a wholesaler. Respondents use form installment sale contracts. A blank form like the one in use at the time of the hearing was received as Respondent's Exhibit No. This was the form used in the Kosmas and LaCoste transactions. The predecessor form used in the Bell, Hobbs and Tunstall transactions was similar in many respects. The earlier form provided, "LATE CHARGES: Buyer(s) hereby agrees to pay a late charge on each installment in default for 10 days or more in an amount of 5 percent of each installment or $5.00 whichever is less." On the reverse, the form provided: ACCELERATION AND REPOSSESSION. In the event any Buyer(s) or Guarantor of this Contract fails to pay any of said installments, including any delinquency charges when due or defaults in the performance of any of the other provisions of this Contract or (c) in case Buyer(s) or Guarantor becomes insolvent or (d) institutes any type of insolvency proceedings or (e) has any thereof instituted against him, or (f) has entered against him any judgment or filed against him any notice of lien in case of any Federal tax or has issued against him any distraint warrant for taxes, or writ of garnishment, or other legal process, or (g) in case of death, adjudged incompetency, or incarceration of the Buyer(s) or Guarantor or (h) in case the seller or the holder of this Contract, upon reasonable cause, determines that the prospect of payment of said sums or the performance by the Buyer(s) or his assigns of this Contract is impaired, then, or in such event, the unpaid portion of the balance hereunder shall, without notice, become forthwith due and payable and the holder, in person or by agent, may immediately take possession of said property, together with all accessions thereto, or may, at first, repossess a part and later, if necessary, the whole thereof with such accessions, and for neither or both of these purposes may enter upon any premises where said property, may be and remove the same with or without process of law. Buyer(s) agrees in any such case to pay said amount to the holder, upon demand, or, at the election of the holder, to deliver said property to the holder. If, in repossessing said property, the holder inadvertently takes possession of any other goods therein, consent is hereby given to such taking of possession, and holder may hold such goods temporarily for Buyer(s), without responsibility of liability therefor, providing holder returns the same upon demand. There shall be no liability upon any such demand unless the same be made in writing within 48 hours after such inadvertent taking of possession. Should this contract mature by its term or by acceleration, as hereinabove provided, then, and in either such event, the total principal amount due hereunder at that time shall bear interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum, which principal and interest, together with all costs and expenses incurred in the collection hereof, including attorneys fees (to be not less than 15 percent of the amount involved), plus appellate fees, if any, and all advances made by Seller to protect the security hereof, including advances made for or on account of levies, insurance, repairs, taxes, and for maintenance or recovery of property shall be due the Holder hereof and which sums Buyer(s) hereby agrees to pay. * * * LIABILITIES AFTER POSSESSION. Seller, upon obtaining possession of the property upon default, may sell the same or any part thereof at public or private sale either with or without having the property at the place of sale, and so far as may be lawful. Seller may be a purchaser at such sale. Seller shall have the remedies of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code (Florida) and any and all rights and remedies available to secured party under any applicable law, and upon request or demand of Seller, Buyer(s) shall, at his expense, assemble the property and make it available to the Seller at the Seller's address which is designated as being reasonably convenient to Buyer(s). Unless the property is perishable or threatens to decline speedily in value or is of a type customarily sold on a recognized market, Seller will give Buyer(s) reasonable notice of the time and place of any public or private sale thereof. (The requirement of reasonable notice shall be met if such notice is mailed, postage prepaid, to Buyer(s) at address shown on records of Seller at least five (5) days before the time of the sale or disposition) Expenses of retaking, holding, preparing for the sale, selling, attorneys' fees, supra, incurred or paid by Seller shall be paid out of the proceeds of the sale and the balance applied on the Buyer(s) obligation hereunder. Upon disposition of the property after default, Buyer(s) shall be and remain liable for any deficiency and Seller shall account to Buyer(s) for any surplus, but Seller shall have the right to apply all or any part of such surplus against (or to hold the same as a reverse against) any and all other liabilities of Buyer(s) to Seller. Similarly, the more recent form provides, on the obverse, Late Charge: If a payment is received more than ten (10) days after the due date, you will be charged $5.00 or five (5 percent) of the payment, whichever is less. and on the reverse, has identical provisions on "Acceleration and Repossession" and "Liabilities After Repossession."
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner find probable cause to initiate judicial proceedings against Respondents pursuant to Section 501.207(1), Florida Statutes (1981). DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 26th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William P. White, Jr., Esquire Assistant State Attorney Post Office Box 12726 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Paul A. Rasmussen, Esquire Eggen, Bowden, Rasmussen & Arnold 4300 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 13 Pensacola, Florida 32503 Curtis A. Golden, State Attorney First Judicial Circuit of Florida Post Office Box 12726 190 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32501
