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 The issue is whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for signing an affidavit allegedly adverse to Respondent and for testifying on behalf of another employee in a proceeding filed under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer as defined in the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent employed Petitioner at Respondent's place of business located in Tallahassee, Florida. On March 29, 1990, Petitioner and Respondent's representative signed an Employment Agreement in which Petitioner agreed, inter alia, that during his employment, he would refrain from: (1) performing services for any person, during business hours, or at any other time, when said services were not authorized by Respondent; (2) soliciting work for or accepting any business from any customer of the company on behalf himself or for any others. On March 30, 1990, Petitioner and Respondent's representative signed a Sales Employee Compensation Plan in which Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner a starting salary of $1,200 per month as a guarantee against commission on sales for the first three months. Thereafter, Respondent's salary of $1,200 per month was to be a draw against commission on sales. Petitioner had to sell a minimum of $8,000 per month to earn his draw. Pursuant to the Sales Employee Compensation Plan, Petitioner earned a percent of sales, ranging from 10 percent to 20 percent, depending on the type of service Petitioner sold. He received commissions after the work was completed and the customer paid for the service. For example, Petitioner earned 15 percent of the annualized value of all pest control work, termite work, or special onetime service that he sold. He earned 20 percent of the initial month's service charge on all annual pest control service that he sold provided that he performed the start-up. Respondent paid Petitioner 20 percent of the total value of all real estate inspections (certification or clearance letter) that Petitioner performed. Under the Sales Employee Compensation Plan, Petitioner elected to receive 2.5 percent of monthly net commissionable sales, or $150, whichever was greater, as a gasoline allowance and to furnish his own transportation. However, Respondent's former branch manager gave Petitioner a gasoline credit card and told Petitioner to put the gasoline allowance in his pocket. The record indicates that the former branch manager acted beyond the scope of his authority in this regard. Upon employment, Respondent's former branch manager gave Petitioner a key to the office. Petitioner also received a pest control kit with which to perform the initial pest control treatment after selling a service contract. Respondent gave Petitioner a voice-pager so that he could stay in touch with the office and respond quickly to "office" leads. No other employee had the benefit of a voice-pager. In May of 1990, Petitioner successfully completed a training course in pest control. That September, he completed a course in termite control. On or about January 14, 1991, Petitioner became qualified to prepare wood infestation reports. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was allowed to sell Respondent's services in north Florida and south Georgia. There were two kinds of sales leads. Petitioner could develop his own "creative" leads and sell anywhere within the sales territory of the Tallahassee branch office. Respondent's office manager logged all incoming "phone" or "office" leads and distributed them to the salesmen based on a geographic division of the sales territory. Petitioner lived in south Georgia; therefore, the office manager gave him all "office" leads originating in Georgia and on the east side of Tallahassee. Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, neither the office manager nor any other supervisor ever discriminated against Petitioner by withholding leads from him or by taking the best leads for themselves or another salesman. On or about September 16, 1991, Petitioner sold a customer a termite protection contract instead of a termite service contract on a very expensive home without Respondent's approval. This incident resulted in the preparation of a written Disciplinary Action Report (DAR) which states that Petitioner would be terminated if he could not follow Respondent's policy governing sales of termite protection and service contracts. Respondent's testimony that he signed this DAR under the threat of violence not credible. On February 26, 1992, Petitioner signed an affidavit relating to the employment relationship between Norm Arrington and Respondent. Mr. Arrington had been a salesman for Respondent and Petitioner's coworker. On March 9, 1992, Petitioner performed a wood-destroying organism inspection on residential property in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner issued a Form 1145 (October '89) Wood Destroying Organisms Inspection Report without identifying visible and accessible evidence of and damage caused by subterranean termites on the exterior of the structure. The Florida Department of Agriculture fined Petitioner $300 dollars for failing to report evidence of termite damage. Respondent paid this fine on Petitioner's behalf. Petitioner failed to report to work on September 12, 1992, for a sales meeting. He claimed he had an emergency but did not call in to explain his absence. Respondent wrote a DAR dated September 14, 1992, warning Petitioner that he would be suspended without pay for three days or terminated if he repeated this type of conduct. Petitioner presented contradictory record evidence concerning his reason for missing the sales meeting: (a) family medical emergency; and (b) mechanical problem with vehicle. Until October of 1992, Petitioner was successful in meeting or exceeding his minimum quota of $8,000 in sales revenue on an averaged monthly basis. One month he earned an award for being Respondent's top salesman statewide. However, in November of 1992, Petitioner's monthly sales revenues dropped below an acceptable level for an experienced salesman. Thereafter, Petitioner was in overdraw status, averaging between $3,000 and $4,000 per month in sales. Except for the month of February, 1993, Petitioner never again met his monthly minimum quota. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner's father owned a construction company. Respondent occasionally hired Petitioner's father to perform termite repair work. Respondent always hired outside contractors to do repair work for customers because of the liability involved and to prevent giving the impression that Terminix, Inc. was in the construction business. Petitioner was also trained as a carpenter. Petitioner admits that, during the months of his highest sales, he solicited and received "building" leads from Respondent's customers. As a result of these leads, Petitioner performed carpentry work, such as building cabinets or repairing damaged woodwork, for Respondent's customers. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent authorized this outside employment is not persuasive. In February of 1993, Tim Carey was Respondent's sales manager. He attended an out-of-town divisional sales meeting and returned to Tallahassee with motivational material to share with his staff. In the material was a poster which stated, "If you don't know where you going . . . you'll probably end up someplace else." Mr. Carey gave a copy of the poster to all salesmen including Petitioner sometime before Petitioner gave testimony adverse to Respondent. Petitioner's testimony that Mr. Carey gave the poster to Petitioner alone as a means of retaliation is not persuasive. On March 22, 1993, Petitioner testified by deposition on behalf of Norm Arrington in an unrelated age discrimination case. Around the end of March or the first of April, 1993, Tim Carey became Respondent's sales manager-in-charge. Respondent's Tallahassee branch did not have a branch manager at that time. Mr. Carey was responsible for all operations under the direct supervision of Ralph Potter, Respondent's regional manager. Mr. Carey officially became branch manager before Respondent terminated Petitioner on June 30, 1993. One of Mr. Carey's first acts as sales manager-in-charge was to change the locks to the office and the pesticide storage room. Petitioner signed a statement that he received a key to the office on March 31, 1993. However, Mr. Carey did not reissue an office key to Petitioner or any other sales representatives because they, unlike route technicians, did not work after normal business hours. Petitioner's testimony that his key was taken away as a discriminatory act is not persuasive. The undersigned also rejects Petitioner's testimony that the office was locked during office hours so that he was unable to use the phone. Mr. Carey also took Petitioner's company gasoline credit card because Petitioner was not entitled to use the card and receive a gasoline allowance too. This action was to enforce company policy, and not to retaliate against Petitioner. Soon after Mr. Carey became sales manager-in-charge, he and the office manager began receiving calls from customers wanting to know when Petitioner was going to finish their carpentry work. Sales meetings were interrupted at times by calls on Petitioner's voice-pager with inquiries about unfinished jobs. On one occasion, Petitioner came to the office at noon with paint on his hands which had been clean earlier that morning. On another occasion Mr. Carey could hear saws operating in the background when Petitioner called the office during business hours. Mr. Carey gave Petitioner repeated verbal warnings not to solicit outside employment or perform outside work for Respondent's customers. After each verbal reprimand, Petitioner would promise that he would stop and that it would not happen again. Mr. Carey eventually took Petitioner's voice-pager away and replaced it with a tone beeper like the ones used by other employees. The purpose of this action was to reduce overhead expenses and alleviate problems with Petitioner abusing the privilege of having a voice-pager. Petitioner could no longer receive direct messages relating to his construction business. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent discriminated against him by taking his voice-pager is contrary to more persuasive testimony. In April or May of 1993, Petitioner performed unauthorized work for one of Respondent's customers who sent one check to pay for a termite inspection and for Petitioner's carpentry work. In order to balance the office books, Respondent deposited the customer's check and wrote a separate company check made payable to Petitioner. Respondent again warned Petitioner not to perform unauthorized work for the company's customers. On May 17, 1993, Respondent prepared another DAR reprimanding Petitioner for two incidents. The first involved Petitioner's issuance of a clearance letter for Ms. Fortune's residence even though Petitioner had identified wood rot on the premises. Petitioner claimed he knew Ms. Fortune and issued the clearance letter based on her promise that she would repair the damage. A subsequent inspection revealed that the customer had not made the repairs. The second incident covered by the May 17, 1993, DAR involved one of Respondent's national relocation customers, Prudential Relocation. Petitioner prepared a wood destroying organism report for the customer without inspecting the inside of the structure. Respondent was responsible for repairing wood rot damage on the house. Petitioner violated Respondent's policy regardless of whether he wrote "exterior only" on the report. Neither party signed the May 17, 1993, DAR. However, Mr. Carey discussed both incidents with Petitioner and warned him that he would be suspended or discharged if: (a) Petitioner gave a clearance letter without inspecting the interior of the structure; and (b) Petitioner issued a clearance letter on a structure with water damage. On another occasion, Petitioner informed Mr. Carey that someone had stollen his pest control kit out of the back of his truck. Petitioner filed a police report on the missing pesticide kit. Several days later, a lady, who was not Respondent's customer, reported that Petitioner left the service equipment at her home after using it to treat her residence. Respondent recovered the missing equipment and did not return it to Petitioner. From that time on, a service technician performed Petitioner's initial pesticide treatments. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent took his pest control kit as a retaliatory act is rejected. Petitioner was not allowed to use the service equipment again because: (a) He left registered material in an unsupervised location; (b) He used the equipment to service a non-customer's property; and (c) He could schedule the start-ups for his new customers through the office. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent took the pest control equipment away and deliberately delayed the start-up service or failed to service on Petitioner's new accounts is not persuasive. On June 8, 1993, Ralph Potter and Tim Carey had a conference with Petitioner. The result of the meeting was a DAR signed by Mr. Potter and Mr. Carey. During the conference, the parties discussed: (a) Petitioner's poor performance for the first week of June, 1993, in which he created only $90 in revenues; (b) Petitioner's poor attitude; and (c) Petitioner's work ethic. Mr. Potter advised Petitioner that he would thereafter be expected to produce $2,500 per week in sales. Petitioner was counseled not to make negative comments, not to perform outside jobs on company time, and not to solicit from or do any work for Respondent's customers. The DAR listed suspension without pay or termination as future corrective action, if required. Petitioner refused to sign the June 8, 1993, DAR. Petitioner's attitude created problems as follows: (1) Mr. Carey had to ask Petitioner to leave a sales meeting because of his negative comments; (2) Petitioner disagreed with Mr. Carey over the proper way to complete required daily written sales reports; (3) Mr. Carey had to ask Petitioner to leave the office by 9:00 a.m. for his first appointment of the day; and (4) Petitioner resented not being allowed to answer the office phone even though company policy dictated that only the office manager, sales manager, or branch manager could answer the phone. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent offered him a job which would have reduced his income significantly is rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Likewise, the undersigned rejects Petitioner's testimony that Ralph Potter physically attacked Petitioner in the men's room during an out-of-town meeting. Respondent discharged Petitioner on June 30, 1993. Petitioner's termination was the result of his unsatisfactory job performance and his failure to follow his supervisors' instructions. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to indicate that Respondent retaliated against Petitioner because he participated in a discrimination suit on behalf of a co-worker. To the contrary, Petitioner's employment record presents a history of problems with his supervisors. When Tim Carey became sales manager-in-charge, he and Ralph Potter warned Petitioner repeatedly that, regardless of his past working conditions, Petitioner would be expected to follow company policies. Petitioner's refusal to heed their advice and to increase his productivity resulted in job separation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of August, 1995. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 21st day of August, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3 Accepted as modified in Findings of Fact 1-6. 4-5 Accepted as modified in Findings of Fact 9 & 14. Accepted as modified in Findings of Fact 11 & 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10, 13, 25, & 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12 except the administrative case involved only one incident. Accepted as modified in Findings of Fact 25-27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 regarding leads. However, Petitioner never received a new key from Mr. Carey. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28 & 29. 13-14 Accepted but unnecessary to resolution of case. Accepted. See Findings of Fact 11, 33, & 34. Not a finding of fact. More of a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Post Office Box 14922 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4922 James M. Nicholas, Esquire Post Office Box 814 Melbourne, Florida 32902 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner owes unpaid sales and use tax, interest, and penalties for the period of February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings are made. Petitioner, Macfarlane, Ferguson, & McMullen, P.A., ("Macfarlane"), is a law firm located in Tampa, Florida. In May 1993, Macfarlane entered into a Copy Control Services Agreement ("1993 Contract") with Copy Control Center ("CCC"). The 1993 Contract, which was effective for three years, called for CCC to provide copying services within the physical confines of the MacFarlane law firm. CCC provided the personnel and MacFarlane provided the equipment and space for copying. The 1993 Contract called for a flat rate charge to Macfarlane. This stated flat rate charge covered a maximum number of copies each month. Pursuant to the terms of the 1993 Contract, so long as MacFarlane did not make more than 160,000 copies per month, it was charged a flat rate of $10,000 per month. Additional copy-related work over the flat rate charge for the maximum of 160,000 copies was at additional cost. An appendix to the 1993 Contract set forth the additional costs not covered by the flat monthly fee. If no copies were made under the contract, the base fee of the $10,000 would still have to be paid by Macfarlane. Paragraph 4 of the 1993 Contract required CCC to bill Macfarlane "monthly for the preceding month's copies." That paragraph of the 1993 Contract also provides that, "[i]ncluded with the invoice will be a detailed monthly usage report." The invoices issued under the 1993 Contract listed all costs for the month or preceding month. At the bottom of each invoice, CCC listed a total "sale amount" which consisted of the total of the copying facilities management charge and the additional charges. Between May 1993 and January 1994, Macfarlane paid sales tax on the total amount invoiced under the 1993 Contract (i.e. for all goods (copies) and services). In 1993 and 1994, the Department audited CCC. The audit was conducted by Elizabeth Sanchez, an auditor employed by the Department. Based on the 1993 and 1994 audit of CCC, the Department, through its auditor, Ms. Sanchez, alleged that CCC was not properly collecting sales tax from its clients, such as Macfarlane. Specifically, Ms. Sanchez determined that CCC should not have been taxing the entire cost of the 1993 Contract since a portion of the contract was related to services. Instead, the auditor represented that CCC should only tax the direct materials for the photocopy process (paper, toner, developer, and other supplies). Ultimately, CCC was assessed $16,000 in back taxes because it failed to pay sales tax on direct materials. During the aforementioned audit of CCC, Ms. Sanchez developed a formula which CCC could use in charging sales and use taxes to its clients. The formula was discussed with CCC personnel. CCC believed that the formula devised by Ms. Sanchez required or allowed the allocation of tax between nontaxable services and taxable photocopy consumables. Based on its understanding of the formula, CCC quit taxing Macfarlane for the entire amount of the monthly invoices issued under the 1993 Contract. Rather, consistent with its understanding of what was allowed under Ms. Sanchez's formula, CCC modified its billing to allocate tax between what CCC considered to be the facilities management services rendered under the 1993 Contract and the photocopy consumables used under that contract. The Department does not dispute that Ms. Sanchez developed a formula during the 1993 and 1994 audit of CCC. In fact, in the Department's Response to Petitioner's Request for Admissions, the Department admits that "Ms. Sanchez did audit Copy Control Center . . . and did develop a formula during that audit." However, the Department contends that the formula developed by Ms. Sanchez has no basis in law and fact and her actions are contrary to Rule 12A-1.0161(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code. According to the Department, that Rule requires both a statement of the actual cost of the taxable sales and the nontaxable services and the separation of taxable sales from non-taxable services in a contract or invoice for the service to be untaxed. In 1996, Macfarlane executed a new Copy Control Services Agreement with CCC (the "1996 Contract"). The 1996 Contract, dated May 22, 1996, was in effect from May 1996 through April 30, 2000. The 1996 Contract contained similar terms and conditions as the 1993 Contract, including a flat-rate charge and a maximum number of copies before additional charges were imposed. The flat-rate charge in the 1996 contract was $10,200 and the maximum number of copies before additional charges were imposed increased to 170,000. Additional copy- related work over the flat rate charge was at additional cost. The additional costs not covered by the flat monthly fee were set forth in an appendix to the 1996 Contract. Paragraph 6 of the 1996 Contract was entitled "Invoices." That section provides in pertinent part the following: A summary invoice for all Customer Locations shall be sent by Copy Control to the bill-to address and contact person of the Customer set forth hereinbelow, on a monthly basis. The monthly minimum base charge will be invoiced on the first day of each month. Additional charges for copies in excess of target volume or additional services from the previous month will be included with this invoice. In addition, Copy Control specifically agrees to provide to such Customer contact person, on a monthly in arrears basis, a summary report of the C.C.M. [Copy Control Management] Services transaction activity at, (A) all Customer Locations; and, (B) the Copy Control back-up facility, if any ("Summary Report"). Each Summary Report will contain, at a minimum, the following information: The total volume of Copies rendered; The number of Copies rendered per Customer location; The number of Copies above the Targeted Copy Volume, if any, and total Excess Copy Charge therefor by Customer Location and Copy Control back-up facility; The volume of Copies and associated dollar amount rendered at Copy Control's back-up facility, if any; The number of Copies "short" of Targeted Copy Volume; Additional Supplies procured, if any; Amount of overtime paid, if any, for Copy Control Personnel and dates therefor; A description of the Related Services, if any provided by Copy Control and the charge(s) therefore, if any; (emphasis supplied) Consistent with the terms of the 1996 Contract, CCC rendered an invoice to Macfarlane each month during the term of the contract and during the remainder of the audit period covered by that contract. Each invoice listed charges for making copies and off-site copies and other copy-related work and/or materials and products. Under the line for "Copying Facilities Mgt. Billing" were the additional charges made according to the appendix to the contract. The following invoice, dated June 30, 1995, is representative of the monthly invoices issued by CCC to Macfarlane during the period covered by the Department's audit of Macfarlane. That invoice provides in material part the following: COPY CONTROL CENTER INVOICE NO. 131611 3907 W. Osborne Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 SOLD TO: MacFarlane Ausley & et al 23rd Floor LeeAnn Conley 111 E. Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 INVOICE DATE 6/30/95 QYT. ORDERED 1 QTY. SHIPPED 1 ITEM NO. COPIES DESCRIPTION COPIES UNIT PRICE 10000.00 Copying Facilities Mgt.Billing for June 23913 23913 Copies Copies Overage 0.04 1 1 TAX Tax on CCM Material 106.39 1 1 Copies Off Site Services 349.36 1 1 TONER 90 TONER 174.25 9 9 STOCK 8 1/2 x 11 White Paper 2.85 SALE AMOUNT 11612.17 MISC. CHARGES 6.500% SALES TAX 35.70 FREIGHT TOTAL 11647.87 For all the invoices generated under the 1996 Contract, CCC taxed Macfarlane in accordance with its understanding of the formula devised and recommended by Ms. Sanchez. Based on application of this formula, Macfarlane was charged and remitted only sales tax for the consumable goods portion of the contract. During the audit period which is the subject of this proceeding, February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998, the sales tax was either 6.5 percent or 7 percent, whichever was in effect at the time of the invoice. The sales tax listed on the invoices do not reflect tax on the total amount of the invoice. A multiplication of the total amount by either 6.5 or 7 percent reveals that the amount of sales taxes paid by Macfarlane for the audit period in question, February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998, was only on a small portion of the total invoice billing. The 1993 Contract and the 1996 Contract between Macfarlane and CCC do not address, contain language, or speak directly to any "facilities management services." Neither do the contracts define the terms "service," "related services," or "other related services." Although the terms listed in paragraph 22 above are not defined in the 1993 Contract and the 1996 Contract, Mr. Cayo, the regional operations manager of Lanier Professional Services (LPS), formerly CCC, testified that other services included facilities management services. According to Mr. Cayo, "facilities management" at Macfarlane included making deliveries and rounds, key-oping equipment, filing, supporting, and cleaning and setting up conference rooms. Diane Garner, an employee of CCC, was assigned to work at Macfarlane during the time of the audit period which is the subject of this proceeding. Ms. Garner testified that facilities management services or other services provided by CCC included providing coffee service, sorting mail, sending and delivering faxes, sending and delivering Federal Express packages, moving boxes, ordering and delivering office supplies, and making interoffice mail runs. If the above-described facilities management services were provided, none of the invoices sent by CCC to Macfarlane separately listed any charges to Macfarlane for those services. Moreover, CCC did not separately list on its invoices to Macfarlane a charge for "mail delivery," "filing," "charge-back accounting," or "clerical services," or any other such services. If these services were deemed "related services," the provisions of the 1996 Contract quoted in paragraph 16 required that a description of such services be provided on the invoice or summary report. No description of the foregoing services appears on any of the invoices prepared by CCC and issued to Macfarlane. No other contracts existed between CCC and Macfarlane during the audit periods which reflect that the services described in paragraphs 23 and 24 above would be offered or provided by CCC to Macfarlane. The Department audited Macfarlane in 1999. The audit was conducted by Darlene Bebbington, an auditor with the Department. During this audit, contrary to the position of Ms. Sanchez during the aforementioned audit of CCC, the Department stated that Macfarlane was required to pay tax on the full amount of the invoices. This conclusion was reached by Ms. Bebbington based on the information contained on each invoice. The invoices did not itemize or otherwise separately list or detail products, materials, and/or services that were exempt from tax. To address issues raised by Ms. Bebbington during the audit, Macfarlane sought information from CCC regarding the sales tax amounts that were listed on the invoices. In response, CCC provided two letters to Macfarlane, one dated April 29, 1999, and the second one dated September 22, 1999. In the April 29, 1999, letter to Macfarlane, Mr. Cayo explained how the company handled the sales tax issue for Facilities Management customers and the rationale for doing so. Mr. Cayo stated that during the Department's audit of CCC, Ms. Sanchez indicated that "Facilities Management" was a service and it "was not subject to be taxed." In the letter, Mr. Cayo also stated that all equipment and material used in the performance of these services needed to be taxed, but not the total "Facilities Management" charge. The September 22, 1999, letter was from Andrew Schutte, Finance Manager of LPS, formerly CCC, to Macfarlane and was in response to a specific inquiry from Macfarlane. In that letter, Mr. Schutte stated that the two full-time CCC employees working at the Macfarlane office assigned 87 percent of their collective time performing various facilities management services and spent approximately 13 percent of their collective time making photocopies. However, the letter did not indicate how Mr. Schutte arrived at the quoted percentages or the time period for which those percentages applied. Based on CCC's claim that the formula devised by Ms. Sanchez was used to calculate the amount of sales tax it should charge Macfarlane, Ms. Bebbington pulled CCC's audit file from the Department's records. The Department contends that any agreement to use a formula such as the one described in paragraph 10, should have, by Department policy, been in writing, signed by the auditor and the supervisors, and placed in the audit file. However, upon a review of the Department's records, no such written agreement or documentation was in the CCC audit file. In light of the Department's admission noted in paragraph 13 above, Ms. Sanchez devised a formula which was shared with CCC, but she apparently did not include this formula or her discussions with CCC in the audit file. After Ms. Bebbington completed the audit of Macfarlane and based on the results thereof, the Department notified Macfarlane that it intended to impose additional sales and use tax, interest, and penalties. After the audit report was issued Macfarlane objected to the findings and requested that the Department reconsider the assessment. On or about April 10, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration ("Notice") based on Macfarlane's protest of the Department's audit findings for the period of February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998. The Notice showed that Macfarlane owed additional sales and use tax of $35,958.27, a penalty of $17,979.37, and interest through April 6, 2000, of $16,701.32, and additional interest through April 12, 2000, of $3,606.12. The notice also indicated that interest would continue to accrue at $9.72 per day from April 12, 2001. According to the Notice, Macfarlane made a payment of $6,407.65 to the Department on April 6, 2000, leaving an unpaid balance of $67,837.43. Macfarlane asserts that it should not have to pay sales and use tax on the full amount of the invoice because a portion of that amount is for services that are exempt from sales and use tax. Contrary to this assertion, the auditor found that the invoices and other documentary evidence provided to the Department did not provide substantial competent evidence that any portion of the invoice amounts were attributable to products, materials, or services that were exempt from tax. Accordingly, based on the information provided by Macfarlane, the Department properly concluded that the total amount of each invoice was subject to sales and use tax. Because there is no substantial competent written documentation evidencing what tax exempt services were performed by CCC for Macfarlane and what specified portion of the monthly costs invoiced to Macfarlane were for those "claimed" tax exempt services, Macfarlane is liable for the entire amount on the invoices for the audit period. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Macfarlane did not timely pay the total amount of the invoices, including the amount attributable by CCC to sales and use tax. But for CCC's changing the manner in which it calculated the sales and use tax for its customers in early 1994, Macfarlane would have continued paying the tax on all goods and services as it did prior to January 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered sustaining the assessment for sales and use tax against Petitioner, but compromising the entire interest and penalty amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 6th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James W. Goodwin, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33602 Bruce Hoffman, 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 Jarrell L. Murchison, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Eric J. Taylor, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David Adams, Esquire Charles Moore, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issues presented concern the request by Petitioner for a refund of $700 paid to the Florida Public Service Commission as a filing fee related to an application for a rate increase of its passenger fares.
Findings Of Fact The facts presented are based upon a stipulation offered by the parties. Those facts were accepted for purposes of this Recommended Order by the interlocutory Order of November 21, 1983. In keeping with that action and pursuant to the parties' stipulation of facts, the following facts are found: (See Stipulation of Facts and all exhibits attached to this Recommended Order.)
The Issue Whether petitioner taxpayer is liable for delinquent sales tax, penalties, and interest under Chapter 212, Florida Stat utes, as alleged by respondent Department in its notice of proposed assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Taxpayer Taxpayer is a family-operated Florida corporation which has engaged in retail sales at the Tampa Port Authority since 1975 or 1976; it is a licensed dealer registered with the Department. (Testimony of Roberts, Marylis.) Taxpayer's Sales During Audit Period From June 1, 1977, through July 31, 1980 (the audit period covered by the Department's proposed assessment), Taxpayer had gross sales in the approximate amount of $691,013.46. (Testimony of Roberts; Exhibit 2.) During that period, Taxpayer filed the required DR-15 monthly sales tax reports and paid taxes on all retail sales transactions which took place on the premises of its store located at 804 Robinson Street, (Tampa Port Authority) Tampa, Florida. (Testimony of Roberts.) During the same audit period -- in addition to sales on its store premises -- Taxpayer sold goods to merchant seamen on board foreign vessels temporarily docked at the Port of Tampa. These vessels operated in foreign commerce, entering the port from and returning to international waters outside the territorial limits of the United States. Taxpayer did not report these sales on its monthly sales tax reports; neither did it charge or collect sales tax from the on-board purchasers. (Testimony of Marylis.) Taxpayer failed to charge or collect sales tax in connection with its on-board sales because it relied on what it had been told by Department representatives. Prior to forming Taxpayer's corporation Thomas Marylis went to the local Department office to obtain a dealer's certificate. While there, he asked Manuel Alvarez, Jr., then the Department's regional audit supervisor, whether he was required to collect sales tax on ship-board sales. Alvarez replied that he didn't have to collect sales taxes on sales made to seamen when he delivered the goods to the ship. 1/ (Testimony of Marylis.) The on-board sales transactions took place in the following manner: Taxpayer (through its owner, Thomas Marylis) would board the foreign vessel and accept orders from the captain, chief mate, or chief steward. (Earlier, one of these persons would have taken orders from the rest of the crew.) If individual crewmen tried to place orders, Marylis would refer them to the captain, chief mate, or chief steward. After receiving orders from one of these three persons, Marylis would return to Taxpayer's store, fill the order, and transport the goods back to the vessel. Whoever placed the order would then examine the goods and give Marylis the money /2 collected from the crew. (Testimony of Roberts, Marylis.) The goods sold in this manner were ordinarily for the personal use of individual crew members; typical items were: shoes, underwear, working clothes, small radios, watches, suitcases, soap, paper towels, and other personal care products. (Testimony of Marylis.) Department Audit of Taxpayer In 1980, the Department audited Taxpayer's corporate books to determine if sales tax had been properly collected and paid. Taxpayer could produce no dock or warehouse receipts, bills of lading, resale certificates from other licensed dealers, or affidavits verifying that its on-board sales were made to out-of-state purchasers for transportation outside of Florida. (Testimony of Roberts, Marylis.) Due to Taxpayer's failure to supply documentation demonstrating that its ship-board sales from June 1, 1977, to July 31, 1980, were exempt from sales tax imposed by Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, the Department issued a proposed assessment on September 23, 1980. Through that assessment, the Department seeks to collect $21,201.01 in delinquent sales tax, $5,131.39 in penalties, and $3,892.18 in interest (in addition to interest at 12 percent per annum, or $6.97 per day, accruing until date of payment). (Exhibit 5.) Informal Conference with Department; Alvarez's Representations to Taxpayer In October 1980 -- after the audit -- Taxpayer (through Marylis) informally met with Manuel Alvarez, the Department's regional audit supervisor, to discuss the tax status of the shipboard sales. Specifically, they discussed the Department auditor's inability to confirm that Taxpayer delivered the items to the ships, as opposed to the buyers picking up the goods at the store. Alvarez told him: [I]f the buyers would come and just pick them up and take them. And I [Alvarez] think I told him that, if that was the case, it was taxable. But, if they just placed their orders there -- like we have had other ship supplies -- and they them- selves, or one of their employees, would take the items aboard ships, that would be an exempt sale. I did make that state ment. If we had any type of confirmation to that effect, when it comes to that. (Tr. 61.) 3/ (Testimony of Alvarez.) Alvarez then told Marylis to obtain documentation or verification that the sales were made on foreign vessels, i.e., proof that Taxpayer delivered the goods to the vessels. He assured Marylis that if he could bring such verification back, such sales "would come off the audit." (Tr. 62.)(Testimony of Alvarez.) Alvarez was an experienced Department employee: he retired in 1980, after 30 years of service. It was Alvarez's standard practice -- when dealing with sales tax exemption questions -- to reiterate the importance of documentation. He would always give the taxpayer an opportunity -- 30 days or more -- to obtain documentation that a sale was exempt from taxation. (Testimony of Alvarez.) Taxpayer's Verification In response to the opportunity provided by Alvarez, Taxpayer (through Marylis) obtained affidavits from numerous captains of foreign vessels and shipping agents. Those affidavits read, in pertinent part: I, [name inserted] , am the Captain aboard the vessel [name inserted] from [place of origin]. I am personally aware that Speros International Ship Supply Co., Inc. sells various commodities, supplies, clothing, and various sundry items to for eign ship personnel by delivering the said items to the ships docked at various termi- nals inside the Tampa Port Authority and other locations in Tampa, Florida from [date] to the present. (Testimony of Marylis; Exhibit 8.) Moreover, in an attempt to comply with the tax law and avoid similar problems in the future, Taxpayer printed receipt books to be used in all future on-board sales. The receipts reflect the type of goods sold, the date of delivery to the vessel, the foreign vessel's destination, and the total purchase price. Also included is a signature line for the individual who delivers and receives the goods. (Testimony of Marylis; Exhibit 7.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Department's proposed assessment of Taxpayer for delinquent sales tax, penalties, and interest, be issued as final agency action. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this cause, Robert W. Pope has been the holder of license no. 62-600, series 4-COP, SRX, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage to trade as The Wedgewood Inn, located at 1701, 4th Street, South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. When the Respondent, Pope, began to operate the licensed premises he was given a registration sales tax number by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This number was provided in accordance with 212, F.S. That law required the remittance of the collected sales tax on a month to month basis, the period beginning with the first day of the month and ending with the last day of the month. The remittance was due on the first day of the following month and payable by the 20th day of the following month. Failure to pay by the 20th would result in a 5 percent penalty and 1 percent interest per month. The sales tax remittance due from the licensed premises for December, 1975 through August, 1976 was not made, and a lien was filed to aid collection of the tax. In mid 1976, the Respondent, contacted the State of Florida, Department of Revenue to discuss term payments of the sales tax remittance. The Respondent in October, 1976 tried to effect a partial release of the tax claim by paying $2,900. In keeping with their policy the Department of Revenue rejected these efforts. Subsequently, in February, 1977, the Respondent made a $10,000 initial payment and three monthly installments to satisfy the lien on this licensed premises and another licensed premises which the Respondent owned. At present all taxes due and owing under 212, F.S. are current. The above facts establish that the Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of 212, F.S. pertaining to the remittance of sales tax from the Respondent to the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This violation, thereby subjects the Respondent to the possible penalties of 561.29, F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Robert W. Pope, be required to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 or have the license no. 62-600, series 4- COP, SRX, suspended for a period of 10 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 611 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Findings Of Fact In 1975 the Florida Legislature passed the Medical Malpractice Reform Act, Chapter 75-9, Laws of Florida, now codified in Chapter 768, Florida Statutes. Part of this legislative package included the creation of the Fund. This legislation was passed in response to a medical malpractice insurance crisis which arose when the primary underwriter for the Florida Medical Association sought to stop issuing medical malpractice policies in Florida, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for physicians or hospitals to obtain medical malpractice insurance coverage at reasonable rates. As a result of this problem, many physicians began to practice defensive medicine, curtail or abandon their practices or practice without coverage of any kind. The Fund is a private not-for-profit organization, participation in which is totally voluntary for its member health care providers. Insofar as Petitioners are concerned, membership in the Fund is but one of several options available to provide legally required evidence of financial responsibility in order to obtain licensure as a hospital facility in Florida. In fact, of the approximately 260 hospitals in Florida, only 125 satisfy their financial responsibility requirement via membership in the Fund. Physicians, hospitals, health maintenance organizations and ambulatory surgical centers who become members of the Fund must maintain at least $100,000 in primary professional liability insurance. Membership in the Fund grants to each participant a limitation of liability above the $100,000 in primary coverage. To the extent that any settlement or judgment exceeds the primary coverage of the participant, it is paid by the Fund without limitation. The Fund is operated subject to the supervision and approval of a board of governors whose membership is required by law to consist of representatives of the insurance industry, the legal and medical professions, physicians' insurers, hospitals, hospitals' insurers and the general public. The Department is charged by statute with certain regulatory functions concerning the Fund. The base fee for Fund membership is set by statute at $500 for physicians, after an initial $1,000 enrollment fee for the first year of participation, and at $300 per bed for hospital members. The statute requires the Department to set additional fees based upon the classifications of health care providers contained in the statute. In the event that base fees are insufficient to pay all claims asserted against the Fund for a given Fund year, the Department is empowered, upon request of the Board of Governors of the Fund, to order additional assessments against Fund participants to meet any such deficiency. Under the original legislation, all classes of health care providers could be assessed unlimited amounts to make up any deficiencies. As a result of legislative amendments in 1976, however, the amount which participants, other than hospitals, could be assessed was limited to the amount each Fund member had paid to join the Fund for that particular coverage year. 1976 legislative amendments also required that each fiscal year of the Fund be operated independently of preceding fiscal years, and further required that occurrences giving rise to claims in a particular Fund year be paid only from fees or investment income on these fees collected for that particular year. Thus, it is entirely possible for the Fund to experience deficits in a given year, and yet hold surplus funds for other years. The dispute in these consolidated proceedings arises from assessments for deficits incurred for the Fund years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979. Each of the hospitals named as Petitioners in the Petition for Administrative Proceedings in Case No. 82-776 were members of the Fund during the Fund year 1977-1978. Each of the hospitals named in the style and listed on Exhibit "A" to the Amendment to Petition for Administrative Proceedings in Case Nos. 82-530 and 82-571 were members of the Fund during the Fund year 1978-1979. On October 31, 1981, the Fund certified to the Department a deficiency in the amount of $1,350,672 for the Fund year 1977-1978. On January 18, 1982, the Fund certified to the Department an additional deficiency for the Fund year 1977-1978 in the amount of $1,759,591. On January 18, 1982, the Fund certified to the Department a deficiency of $13,935,927 for the Fund year 1978-1979. On January 13, 1982, the Department issued an "order" assessing various classes of health care providers the deficiency originally certified by the Fund for the Fund year 1977-1978. The "order" of January 13, 1982, was amended by the "order" of February 1, 1982, for the Fund year 1977-1973. The amended order contained the same dollar amount of assessments, but altered the amount charged to various classes of Fund members. On February 17, 1982, the Department issued its "order" granting the second assessment for the Fund year 1977-1978. On January 22, 1982, the Department issued its "order" granting the assessment for the 1978-1979 Fund year. The Department has not promulgated any rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pertaining to its regulation of or duties in conjunction with the Fund under Section 768.54, Florida Statutes. As members of the Fund, each of the Petitioners' interests are substantially affected by the Orders of January 13, 1982; January 22, 1982; February 1, 1982; and February 17, 1982. For the Fund year 1977-1978 the total assessment ordered by the Department is $3,110,263. The total assessment for the Fund year 1978-1979 is $13,935,972. For the Fund year 1977-1978, physicians and professional association members are proposed to be assessed $1,730,207. During the Fund year 1977-1978, hospital members paid into the Fund, exclusive of interest earned on the fees, the amount of $5,292,498. For the Fund year 1977-1978, physicians and professional association members paid into the Fund the sum of $2,326,541. For the Fund year 1978-1979, hospital members paid into the Fund, exclusive of interest earned on their fees, the sum of $5,627,553. Interest earned through December 31, 1981, on these fees is $1,725,845. For the Fund year 1978-1979, physicians and professional association members paid into the Fund, exclusive of interest earned on their fees, the sum of $2,411,205. Interest earned through December 31, 1981, on the fees contributed by physicians and professional associations is $739,463. For the Fund year 1977-1978, the proposed assessments against hospital members of the Fund is $1,374,827. For the Fund year 1978-1979, the Fund retained the services of an independent actuarial firm to study and recommend appropriate additional fees to charge its members. The following table reflects the statutory base fees, the fees recommended by the actuary, the fees sought by the Fund and the fees ordered by the Department of Insurance for the 1977-1978 Fund year. Base Fees Actuary's Additional Additional Paid Recommended Fees Fees Pursuant Additional Requested Ordered to Stat. Fees by FPCF By DOI Class I Physicians $ $ $ $ Dade/Broward Co. 500.00 2,233.00 2,233.00 -0- Rest of State 500.00 l,749.00 1,749.00 -0- Class II Physicians Dade/Broward Co. 500.00 4,420.00 4,420.00 -0- Rest of State 500.00 3,549.00 3,549.00 -0- Class III Physicians Dade/Broward Co. 500.00 12,619.00 12,619.00 -0- Rest of State 500.00 10,297.00 10,297.00 -0- Hospitals (per occupied bed) 300.00 222.00 222.00 -0- Ambiatory Surgical Centers -0- 22.00 22.00 -0- (per 100 patients) Health Maintenance Organizations -0- 150.00 150.00 -0- (per 100 subscribers) Professional -0- 20 percent of additional (SAME) -0- fee to be paid by each individual member For the Fund year 1978-1979, the Department made no independent actuarial study of the recommended fees proposed by the independent actuary employed by the Fund, and no member of the Casualty Actuarial Society evaluated the Fund's recommendations on behalf of the Department. The independent actuary employed by the Fund was the only actuary who presented any evidence at the hearing conducted by the Department on the Fund's fee increase request for the Fund year 1978-1979. Each year since the Fund year 1977-1979 the Fund has employed the services of an actuary who, among other things, projected the expected losses above the claims previously paid and reserves established for known claims. These expected losses are reported as IBNR ("incurred but not reported") for each Fund year. The IBNR projected by the actuary employed by the Fund in the most recent report (October 1981) for the Fund year 1977-1978 is $6,306,036, and for the Fund year 1978-1979 is $15,965,324. The Department computed the portion of the assessment to be paid by the different classes of health care providers for the Fund year 1977-1978 based upon an approach known as the "indicated rate method." It is concluded from the record that this method is the most feasible of all suggested alternatives under existing law for reflecting the statutory classifications and, at the same time, providing immediate funds necessary to meet all claims against the Fund. This method is represented by the following formula: The Department started with rates which should have been charged each class in 1981-1982. This is called the "indicated rate by class." (The indicated rates were taken from the October, 1980 report by the Fund actuary.) The Department then applied the following formula for each class: Indicated Rate by Class x Number of Members in the Class = Total indicated fees by Class Total Indicated Fees by Class - Total Indicated Fees for ALL Classes Percentage of Indicated Fees by Class. Percentage of Indicated Fee by Class x Total Expected Loss for ALL Classes Expected Loss by Class. (Expected loss is all losses for the fund year included claims previously paid, reserves established on claims asserted and IBNR (incurred but not reported) Expected Loss by Class - Actual Fees paid by Class = Potential Loss Assessment by Class. Potential Loss Assessment by Class - Potential Loss Assessment for ALL Classes Percentage of Potential Loss Assessment by Class. Percentage of Potential Loss Assessment by Class x Total Assessment to be Ordered by the DOI = Amount of Assessment by Class. The following chart shows the amount each class would have paid under the "indicated rate method" for the Fund year 1977-1978, and the amount actually proposed to be assessed in the "orders" of the Indicated Rate Assessment Department: Actual Assessment a) Class I Physicians $ 146,487.00 $ 138,000.00 b) Class II Physicians 213,502.00 438,297.00 c) Class III Physicians 2,195,383.00 813,048.00 d) Hospitals 521,560.00 1,374,827.00 e) HMO 614.00 Surgical Centers 1,381.00 79,953.00 Professional Associations 28,336.00 Based upon the "indicated rate method" and based upon the application of Section 768.54, Florida Statutes, employed by the Department, assessments for the Fund year 1977-1978 which would otherwise be attributable to physician members of the Fund in the approximate amount of $1,500,000 were not charged to any class of physician. Based upon the "indicated rate method" and based upon the application of Section 768.54, Florida Statutes, employed by the Department, assessments for the Fund year 1978-1979 otherwise attributable to physician members of the Fund in the approximate amount of $9,000,000 were not charged to any class of physicians. The assessments described in the "orders" of the Department for the Fund year 1977-1978 which could not be applied to physician members, based upon the Department's interpretation of Section 768.54, Florida Statutes, were spread among the other classes of health care providers based upon their percentage of "expected losses." The Petitioners in this case, each of whom are members of the Fund, consist of 30 government hospitals, 43 private, nonprofit hospitals, and seven private, for-profit hospitals. During the Fund years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979, the Fund consisted of the following classes and numbers of members: 1977-1978 1978-1979 a) Class I Physicians 1392 1516 b) Class II Physicians 814 971 c) Class III Physicians 1584 1690 d) Hospitals 120 130 e) HMO 2 3 f) Surgical Centers 11 14 g) Professional Associations 572 855 The "orders" of the Department dated January 13, 1982; January 22, 1982; February 1, 1982; and February 17, 1982, were the first time any member of the Fund has been assessed under Section 768.54, Florida Statutes. The fees paid into the Fund; the investment income earned through December 31, 1981, on such fees; the expenses incurred through December 31, 1981; the amounts paid on claims through December 31, 1981; reserves established through and the IBNR for each Fund year for 1975-1976 through 1980-1981 are reflected on the table on page 10a. (IBNR figures are projections of future losses prepared by the Fund's actuary in October 1981.) The rates applicable to physicians and hospital members of the Fund for the years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 were the base fees provided in Section 768.54, Florida Statutes. No additional fees were set for those Fund years. The rate order for the 1978-1979 year entered by the Department on June 9, 1978, was not appealed. The Fund in fact experienced deficits in both Fund years in controversy in this proceeding. The Fund certified to the Department the amount of its projected deficit for the years in question. The amount of money ultimately certified by the Fund to the Department accurately reflects the amounts derived from the following formula: FUND YEAR: 1975-1976 1976-1977 1977-1978 FEES PAID $2,928,672 $6,303,257 $7,467,605 INTEREST EARNED 1,475,41 3,000,118 2,592,179 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (54,846) (95,002) (148,113) NET FUNDS AVAILABLE 4,349,227 9,208,373 9,911,671 TO PAY LOSSES LOSSES PAID TO DATE (3,004,273) (6,869,395) (8,271,696) INDEMNITY EXPENSES (300,334) (343,433) (391,858) RESERVED LOSSES (971,733) (4,249,604) (3,663,348) RESERVED EXPENSES (57,584) (111,466) (172,869) PRESENT SURPLUS/DEFICIT (14,697) (2,365,525) (2,588,100) LOSSES INCURRED NOT YET REPORTED (IBNR) (AS OF 6/30/81) (1,189,136) (3,878,887) (7,970,235) FUND YEAR: 1978-1979 1979-1980 1980-1981 FEES PAID $8,060,374 $9,836,157 $11,225,275 INTEREST EARNED 2,543,698 2,589,547 1,882,319 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (128,556) (279,838) (406,641) NET FUNDS AVAILABLE 10,475,506 12,145,866 12,700,953 TO PAY LOSSES LOSSES PAID TO DATE (9,760,650) (3,410,358) (37,500) INDEMNITY EXPENSES (532,197) (206,616) (32,619) RESERVED LOSSES (13,782,271) (6,445,000) (3,750,000) RESERVED EXPENSES (267,932) (342,787) (114,417) PRESENT SURPLUS/DEFICIT (13,867,544) (1,741,105) (8,766,417) LOSSES INCURRED NOT YET (14,979,237) (28,295,428) (51,500,564) REPORTED (IBNR) (AS OF 6/30/81) FUND YEAR: TOTALS FEES PAID $45,821,340 INTEREST EARNED 14,083,262 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (1,113,006) NET FUNDS AVAILABLE 58,791,596 TO PAY LOSSES LOSSES PAID TO DATE (31,353,872) INDEMNITY EXPENSES (1,837,057) RESERVED LOSSES (32,861,956) RESERVED EXPENSES (1,067,055) PRESENT SURPLUS/DEFICIT (8,328,344) LOSSES INCURRED NOT YET (107,813,487) REPORTED (IBNR) (AS OF 6/30/81) Total fees paid during the Fund Year + Investment Income attributable to the Fund Year Expenses allocated to that Fund Year Amount paid on claims for that Fund Year Amount reserved for all known claims for that Fund Year. The Department entered orders levying the assessments on January 13, 1982; January 22, 1982; February 1, 1982; and February 17, 1982. The parties to this proceeding stipulated that the assessments entered by the Department for 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 are to be considered to be proposed agency action as to such parties. The Department limited the amount assessed against any physician member to an amount equal to the annual membership fee paid by the physician for the year giving use to the assessment. According to the "orders" of the Department for the Fund year 1977- 1978, Class III physicians' share of the assessment, based upon the assessment formula utilized, was in excess of the amount of membership fees paid by that group, and the balance was spread over the rest of the classes of health care providers. According to the "orders" of the Department for the Fund year 1978- 1979, Class I, II, and III physicians' share of the assessment, based upon the assessment formula utilized, was in excess of the amount of membership fees paid by those groups, and the balance was spread among those health care providers described in Section 768.54(1)(b)l.,5.,6., and 7., Florida Statutes. The Department, by order dated June 9, 1978, denied the Fund's request for additional fees for the year 1978-1979. In April 1981, at the request of the Department, the Fund filed a "Retrospective Rating Plan." This plan provided that at such time as the Fund dropped below 25 percent of the original fees paid in any fund year an assessment would be triggered. The plan further provided for the assessment to be based upon all settlements or final judgments entered but unpaid at the time of the assessment, and all reserves established by the Fund at the time of the assessment. This "Retrospective Rating Plan" was approved by the Department, but not adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Although the Fund sought to amend the plan both before and after the assessments now at issue, the original plan remained in effect at all times material to this cause. Although Petitioners have not disputed the amount of the reserves set by the Fund, such reserves constitute a substantial portion of the assessment amounts requested by the Fund. The Department has not made any evaluation of the accuracy of the case reserves, nor has the Department made any analysis of the method employed by the Fund in setting case reserves. There was some evidence that the cash shortages experienced by the Fund for the Fund years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 may have been caused in part by the manner in which the Fund has paid claims. In 1976 the Florida Legislature limited the amount which the Fund could payout on claims to $100,000 per person, per year. In addition, the law provides that reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be paid to a successful claimant within the first 90 days following a judgment or settlement. In most instances, the Fund does not inquire into the fee arrangement between plaintiffs and their attorneys. Moreover, no claim for attorneys' fees is required to be submitted to the Fund or the trial court to set a reasonable percent fee for such services. The Fund has indicated that for claims paid for the Fund years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979, the Fund simply assumed that attorneys' fees and costs equalled 40 percent of the amount of the settlement or judgment. In most cases, the Fund does not consider any portion of the attorneys' fees as having been paid by the primary insurance carrier. In some instances, it appears that payments made by the Fund may have disregarded the $100,000 per person, per year payout limitation, and in other instances the Fund has been ordered to pay amounts in excess of the statutory limit and has not pursued an appeal of such orders. In still other instances the Fund has purchased annuities to fund settlements or judgments, the cost of which annuities exceeded the $100,000 payout limitation. The Fund does not consider such payments to be subject to the payout limitation although no rights of ownership in the annuities are retained by the Fund. It is possible that the cumulative effect of these practices has been significant. Petitioners adduced evidence estimating "excess payments" by the Fund for 1977-1978 over the statutory limit could be as high as $2,684,737. For the Fund year 1978-1979 these "excess payments" could be as high as $4,827,690. Under the Department's application of Section 768.54, Florida Statutes, no physician member will again be assessed for the Fund years 1977- 1978 and 1978-1979. Yet, based upon the latest estimates by the Fund's consulting actuary, additional claims for those two years which have not yet been reported could reach as high as $22,949,472. Under the Department's construction of the statute, hospital members will have to pay all of these additional losses, if the actuary's projections prove correct.
The Issue Whether the agency has an unpromulgated statement of general applicability that imposed a requirement not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule, and which has been utilized against Petitioners to their detriment.
Findings Of Fact On March 24, 1994, the Department of Revenue (Department) issued a Notice of Reconsideration (NOR) that claimed the Petitioners, Terry and Donna Ernst, had willfully failed to collect sales tax. Petitioners' assertion of an exemption in connection with the sales tax assessment was denied. The NOR provided that the Petitioners are the president and vice- president of Hussh, Inc., a retail apparel store in Palm Beach, Florida and that such company made sales to customers for delivery in the store and for shipment outside of the State of Florida. At issue were the alleged shipments to out of state destinations. Pertinent to this case is the language in the NOR found at page two which provided: Due to the inadequacy and volume of Hussh's records, the auditor sampled the available records, and assessed Hussh for asserted out of state sales that were improperly documented. According to the auditor, many of the sales receipts or invoices of asserted out of state shipments were missing the top portion of the invoice. Significantly, this portion of the invoice would contain the names, addresses, and asserted export destination information on each sale. Other invoices were stamped, "out of state shipped," but no destination information was present on the invoice. [Emphasis added.] The Petitioners maintain that the portions of the NOR emphasized in the foregoing paragraph constitute an agency statement of general applicability and is, therefore, an unpromulgated rule. The Department does not have a rule which lists all documentation which might establish an exemption for sales tax assessment. Similarly, the Department does not have a rule that lists the type of documentation which would be inadequate to establish an exemption for sales taxes. The Department's existing rule, Rule 12A-1.064, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in part: (1)(a) Sales tax is imposed on the sales price of each item or article of tangible personal property, unless otherwise exempt, when the property is delivered to the purchaser or his representative in this state. However, the tax does not apply to tangible personal property irrevocably committed to the exportation process at the time of sale, when such process has been continuous or unbroken. (b) Intent of the seller and the purchaser that the property will be exported is not sufficient to establish the exemption; nor does delivery of the property to a point in Florida for subsequent transportation outside Florida necessarily constitute placing the property irrevocably in the exportation process. Tangible personal property shall be deemed committed to the exportation process if: The dealer is required by the terms of the sale contract to deliver the goods outside this state using his own mode of transportation. The dealer must retain in his records trip tickets, truck log records, or other documentation reflecting the specific items and export destination; The dealer is required by the terms of the sale contract to deliver the goods to a common carrier for final and certain movement of such property to its out of state destination. Sales by a Florida dealer are exempt when the dealer delivers the merchandise to the transportation terminal for shipment outside this state and secures a dock or warehouse receipt and a copy of the bill of lading. On shipments to points outside the United States, a shipper's export declaration shall also be obtained; [Emphasis added.] Rule 12A-1.093, Florida Administrative Code, requires taxpayers to maintain and preserve records. This rule provides, in part: (2) Each dealer defined in Chapter 212, F.S., each licensed wholesaler, and any other person subject to the tax imposed by Chapter 212, F.S., shall keep and preserve a complete record of all transactions, together with invoices, bills of lading, gross receipts from sales, RESALE CERTIFICATES, CONSUMER EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES and other pertinent records and papers as may be required by the Department of Revenue for the reasonable administration of Chapter 212, F.S., and such books of account as may be necessary to determine the amount of tax due thereunder. The terms "bill of lading," "dock or warehouse receipt," and "invoice" are common terms used in the business community. Each connotes that, at the minimum, certain information will be retained on the face of the document. For example, according to Petitioners' witness, the minimum information expected on a bill of lading would be: the name of the person that the item is being shipped to, the item being shipped, the cost of the shipment, and the terms of the shipment with the value of the item being shipped. Similarly, the minimum information which is expected on an "invoice" would be: a description of the item sold, the amount of the sale, and the name of the person to whom the item was sold. The terms "bill of lading," "dock or warehouse receipt," and "invoice" are not defined by rule. The Department determined whether an exemption was documented based upon the results of this audit.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner owes sales tax of $15,230.15 plus interest from October 15, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a sole proprietorship organized in this state and doing business at 851 Monterey Road, Stuart, Florida. Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for administering the state sales tax in accordance with Chapter 212, Florida Statutes.1 In 1992, other businesses located at Petitioner's address reported to Respondent that they paid rent to Petitioner. However, Petitioner did not collect and remit sales tax on the rental income and was not registered as a dealer. On February 3, 1992, Respondent mailed a Notice of Intent to Audit Petitioner's books and records ("Notice of Intent to Audit") for the tax period February 1, 1987, through January 31, 1992. The Notice of Intent to Audit included a detailed list of the books and records needed for Respondent to conduct a detailed audit. The Notice also requested that Petitioner provide Respondent with a date on which it would be convenient to begin the audit. On February 11, 1992, Respondent had not heard from Petitioner. The auditor contacted Petitioner to schedule a date on which the audit could begin. At that time, Petitioner stated that he would not provide the auditor with any books and records. Petitioner refused to make available the books and records for 1990 through 1992 because Petitioner incorrectly suspected that Respondent maintained a secret "blacklist." Petitioner based his suspicion, in part, on the fact that he had refused to respond to a questionnaire Respondent had mailed to taxpayers throughout the state prior to the Notice of Intent to Audit. Petitioner also based his suspicion on the erroneous assumption that Respondent's audit was part of a criminal investigation by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") into Petitioner's federal taxes for 1987 and 1988. Petitioner refused to make available the books and records for 1987 through 1989 because those records were in the possession of the IRS. Petitioner maintained that the proposed audit was illegal. Respondent sent Petitioner copies of its statutory authority to audit Petitioner and made numerous attempts to arrange a mutually convenient time to begin the audit. Respondent did not commence the audit until March 10, 1993. On March 10, 1993, the auditor and audit group supervisor met with Petitioner and Mr. Eugene Nail, Petitioner's paralegal. Petitioner stated that he did not have the books and records Respondent needed to conduct a detailed audit because the IRS had confiscated them in connection with the pending criminal case. Respondent conducted the audit using the information Petitioner made available to the auditor. Petitioner made available: sales invoices for 1990 and 1991 and one month in 1992 grouped together by calendar month; sales and use tax return booklets; resale and exemption certificates; and commercial lease agreements. No journals and ledgers were available. Respondent determined Petitioner's tax deficiency by sampling the available information. Pursuant to Petitioner's request, the auditor used a six month sample period. The auditor explained to Petitioner that she would use Petitioner's invoices during the sample period to determine tax- exempt sales. She compared the invoices to resale certificates and calculated an error ratio based on discrepancies between the sales invoices and the resale certificates. Respondent determined the actual deficiency in sales tax during the six month sample period based on actual invoices that did not have a resale certificate and for which no sales tax was remitted. Respondent estimated the additional deficiency in sales tax by applying the error ratio to the balance of the audit period. Respondent examined only those invoices provided by Petitioner and previous sales tax returns filed by Petitioner. On April 9, 1993, the auditor conducted a meeting with Petitioner and discussed the audit procedures, results, applicable law, and abatement rules. On June 15, 1993, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Sales and Use Tax Changes in the amount of $45,469.05 ("Notice of Intent"). The Notice of Intent included a copy of all audit exhibits and workpapers. On August 30, 1993, Petitioner provided additional invoices to Respondent in a meeting with the auditor and audit group supervisor. On October 15, 1993, the auditor adjusted certain items in the audit file, reduced the proposed assessment, and issued a Revised Notice of Intent to Make Sales and Use Tax Changes in the amount of $37,417.45 ("Revised Notice of Intent"). Petitioner requested additional time to provide more information, including additional resale certificates. However, Petitioner failed to provide the additional information. By letter dated December 9, 1993, the audit group supervisor notified Petitioner that she was closing the case and sending it to the Tallahassee office as a contested case. On December 23, 1993, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment to Petitioner assessing Petitioner for $37,417.45 in tax, penalty, and interest through October 15, 1993. On February 21, 1994, Respondent received Petitioner's written protest dated February 10, 1994. Respondent revised the audit figures again. On January 20, 1995, Respondent issued its Notice of Decision reducing the assessment against Petitioner to $15,230.15. The Notice of Decision assessed Petitioner for taxes of $8,900.55, penalties of $2,225.14, and interest of $4,104.46 through October 15, 1993. Interest accrues at the per diem rate of $2.93 until paid. On March 16, 1995, Petitioner timely appealed the Notice of Decision by filing a Petition for Formal Hearing with Respondent. Inadequate Records Petitioner failed to maintain adequate books and records within the meaning of Sections 212.12(6), 212.13(2), 212.35, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 12A-1.093(2) and (5).2 Petitioner failed to maintain adequate books and records for the five year audit period prescribed in Section 213.34(2). Petitioner failed to maintain general ledgers and journals for the five year audit period. The only records Petitioner maintained were sales invoices for 1990 and 1991 and one month in 1992. Petitioner was unable to produce adequate records for 1987 through 1989. Petitioner asserted that the IRS had those records and that Petitioner could not obtain the records required by Florida law. The federal tax case has been pending against Petitioner since 1990.3 During those seven years, Petitioner was unable to obtain copies of any records in the possession of the IRS. The journals and ledgers for 1987 and 1988 were maintained on computer floppy disks. Petitioner asserts that the floppy disks were lost. Petitioner asserts that his attorney kept the books and records for 1989 in an out-of-state location to avoid producing those records for the IRS. The journals and ledgers for 1990 though 1992 are in the possession of Petitioner's accountants. Petitioner did not produce those records during the audit or at the administrative hearing. Petitioner could have requested the journals and ledgers for 1989 through 1991 from his attorney and accountants, respectively, but chose not to do so. Petitioner made available to Respondent only sales invoices for 1990 and 1991 and one month in 1992. Without the general ledgers and cash journals to cross- reference the sales invoices, Respondent could not corroborate the financial records available for audit. Respondent was required by applicable law to conduct the audit by sampling Petitioner's available records. Exempt Sales: Resale Certificates Certain exempt sales claimed by Petitioner during the six month sample period were not supported by resale certificates. Respondent disallowed the exempt sales that were not supported by resale certificates and allowed the invoices that were supported by resale certificates. For the six month sample period, Respondent assessed an actual sales tax deficiency for those sales that did not have a corresponding resale certificate.4 Respondent prepared audit schedules for the six month sample period that listed the invoices with a sales tax deficiency due to the lack of a resale certificate. Based on the audit schedules, Respondent determined an error ratio and applied the error ratio over the five year audit period to determine the estimated tax deficiency.5 Respondent conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted audit procedures and with applicable state law. Disallowed exempt sales were listed individually by invoice, name of vendor, and the date and amount of the sale. Disallowed exempt sales were listed for each of the six months in the sample period. Additional Taxable Sales Sales invoices for the six month sample period showed that Petitioner collected more sales tax than he reported to Respondent on his monthly sales tax returns. Respondent treated the collected, but unremitted, sales tax as "additional taxable sales" rather than as an unremitted sales tax. Respondent assessed Petitioner for the sales tax paid on Petitioner's invoices but not remitted to Respondent by Petitioner. The deficiency existed for May and June, 1990, and for January and February, 1991. Taxable Rent Respondent reviewed lease agreements relating to property rented by Petitioner at his business address. Respondent determined that Petitioner failed to collect and remit sales tax on the rental of his property. Respondent assessed Petitioner for sales tax Petitioner failed to collect and remit on taxable rent. Petitioner does not contest that portion of the assessment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein UPHOLD Respondent's assessment of $15,230.15 plus interest statutorily due from October 15, 1993, until paid.RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1997.
