The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner owes State of Florida use tax and local government infrastructure tax on the alleged use of three airplanes.
Findings Of Fact Charles and Dorothy Tolbert own and operate American Aircraft International, Inc. (American). American is in the business primarily of selling and brokering aircraft sales. Most of American's business involves brokering in which American earns a commission or fee for putting together a seller and buyer and bringing the transaction to a conclusion. On a much less frequent basis, American will purchase an airplane for resale. American advertises the availability of its airplanes, both brokered and American-owned, for either sale or lease. However, American has not had occasion to lease one of its own aircraft except as part of a lease-purchase agreement. American does not make any other use of airplanes it offers for sale or lease, except as necessary for maintenance and repairs and for demonstration to prospective purchasers or lessees. Such use would be cost-prohibitive. Fuel, crew, and insurance costs would be well in excess of the cost of a ticket on a commercial airline. American's insurance policy only covers the use of the planes for demonstration and maintenance purposes. On February 6, 1990, American traded for a King Air 200, N56GR, serial number 059, at an acquisition value of $650,000. The King Air 200 was delivered to American from Carlisle, Kentucky, and held by American for resale purposes only and was flown only for purposes of maintenance and repairs and for demonstration to prospective purchasers. When it was sold in 1991 to an English company, BC Aviation, Ltd., American had flown the aircraft only 7 hours. The aircraft was delivered out-of- state in May 1991. In July 1991, American bought a kit for a home-built aircraft called the Renegade, serial number 445. The kit was manufactured and sold by a company in British Columbia, Canada. American's intent in purchasing the kit was to build the airplane and decide whether to become a dealer. It took a year and a half to build, and by the time it was completed, American decided not to pursue the dealership. In September of 1991, American sold the Renegage to the Tolberts. The Tolberts registered the Renegade in September 1994, under N493CT. At first, the Tolberts did not pay sales tax on their purchase of the Renegade. They thought that, since they owned American, no sales tax was due. When the Department audited American and pointed out that sales tax was due, the Tolberts paid the tax in December 1994. In 1991, American also purchased a King Air B90, N988SL, serial number LJ438, for $175,000. The King Air B90 was held by American for resale purposes only and was flown only for purposes of maintenance and repairs and for demonstration to prospective purchasers. In July 1991, American sold the aircraft to Deal Aviation of Chicago, Illinois. However, Deal could not qualify for its own financing, so American agreed to lease-sell the aircraft to Deal. Under the lease-purchase agreement entered into on July 21, 1991, the purchase price was $269,000, payable $4,747.85 a month until paid in full. (The agreement actually said payments would be made for 84 months, but that would amount to total payments well in excess of the purchase price; the evidence did not explain this discrepancy.) American continued to hold title to the aircraft and continued to make payments due to the bank on American's financing for the aircraft. The lease- purchase agreement must have been modified, or payments accelerated, because American transferred title to the aircraft in April 1993. The Department asserted that a Dolphin Aviation ramp rental invoice on the King Air B90 issued in August for the month of September 1991 reflected that the aircraft was parked at the Sarasota-Bradenton Airport at the time of the invoice, which would have been inconsistent with American's testimony and evidence. But the invoice contained the handwritten notation of Dorothy Tolbert that the airplane was "gone," and her testimony was uncontradicted that she telephoned Dolphin when she got the invoice and to inform Dolphin that the invoice was in error since the plane had not been at the ramp since Deal removed it to Illinois on July 21, 1991. As a result, no ramp rent was paid after July 1991. Indeed, the Department's own audit schedules reflect that no ramp rent was paid on the King Air B90 after July 1991. The Department also presented an invoice dated September 16, 1991, in the amount of $3400 for engine repairs done on the King Air B90 by Hangar One Aviation in Tampa, Florida. The invoice reflects that the repairs were done for American and that they were paid in full on September 19, 1991, including Florida sales tax. The Department contended that the invoice was inconsistent with American's testimony and evidence. But although American paid for these repairs, together with Florida sales tax, Mrs. Tolbert explained that the repairs were made under warranty after the lease-purchase of the airplane by Deal. A minor engine problem arose soon after Deal removed the airplane to Illinois. Deal agreed to fly the plane to Hangar One for the repairs, and American agreed to pay for the repairs. After the repairs were made, Hangar One telephoned Mrs. Tolbert with the total, and she gave Hangar One American's credit card number in payment. She did not receive American's copy of the invoice until later. She does not recall if she: noticed the Florida sales tax and did not think to question it; noticed it and decided it was not enough money ($179) to be worth disputing; or just did not notice the Florida sales tax. When American's certified public accountant (CPA), Allan Shaw, prepared American's federal income tax return for 1990, he included the King Air 200 as a fixed capital asset on the company's book depreciation schedule and booked $26,146 of depreciation on the aircraft for 1990 on a cost basis of $650,000. For federal tax purposes, he took the maximum allowable depreciation deduction on the aircraft ($92,857) by attributing a seven-year life to the aircraft and using the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation. The next year, 1991, Shaw included the both the King Air B90 and the Renegade as fixed capital assets on the company's book depreciation schedule. He booked $9,378 of depreciation on the B90 on a cost basis of $175,000 and $1,872 on the Renegade on a cost basis of $25,922 for part of the year 1991. For federal tax purposes, he took the maximum allowable depreciation deduction on the B90 ($12,507) by attributing a seven-year life to the aircraft and using the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation. This depreciation was subtracted from the "gross income from other rental activities" on Schedule K of the return in the amount of $22,796, which represented the payments from Deal under the lease-purchase agreement. The Renegade was depreciated for the same amount as its book depreciation, and no income was recorded as having been generated from use of the Renegade. The next year, 1992, Shaw again included the both the King Air B90 and the Renegade as fixed capital assets on the company's book depreciation schedule. He booked $35,613 of depreciation on the B90 and $5,555 on the Renegade. For federal tax purposes, he took the maximum allowable depreciation deduction on the B90 ($25,014) by attributing a seven-year life to the aircraft and using the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation. This depreciation was subtracted from the "gross income from other rental activities" on Schedule K of the return in the amount of $51,737, which again represented the payments from Deal under the lease-purchase agreement. The Renegade was depreciated for the same amount as its book depreciation, and no income was recorded as having been generated from use of the Renegade. It is not clear from the evidence why American's CPA decided American was entitled to claim depreciation on the three aircraft in question. (Shaw also depreciated another airplane in 1989 which was before the period covered by the Department's audit.) Shaw's final hearing and deposition testimony was confusing as to whether he recalled discussing the question with the Tolberts. He may have; if he did, he probably discussed it with Mrs. Tolbert. Meanwhile, Mrs. Tolbert does not recall ever discussing the question of depreciation with Shaw. In all likelihood, Shaw probably made his own decision that American could depreciate the airplanes to minimize income taxes by claiming that they were fixed capital assets used in the business and not just inventory items being held for resale. For the King Air B90, there were lease payments Shaw could use to justify his decision; but there were no lease payments for the King Air 200 or the Renegade. The evidence was not clear whether there were lease payments for the airplane Shaw depreciated in 1989. For the next year, 1993, Shaw included the Renegade as a fixed capital asset on the company's book depreciation schedule and booked $7,712 of depreciation on the Renegade. For federal tax purposes, the Renegade was depreciated for the same amount as its book depreciation, and no income was recorded as having been generated from use of the Renegade. When the Department audited American starting in July 1994, tax auditor William Berger saw the depreciation schedules and tax returns, both of which indicated to him that the three airplanes in question were used by the company, but no sales or use tax was paid on them. (He also pointed out the Tolberts' failure to pay sales tax on the purchase of the Renegade from American, and the Tolberts later paid the tax, as previously mentioned.) As a result, on July 26, 1995, the Department issued two notices of intent. One was to make sales and use tax audit changes which sought to assess American $56,097.77 in use taxes, together with delinquent penalties of $14,657.36 and interest through July 26, 1995, in the amount of $31,752.61, for a total of $102,507.74, with subsequent interest accruing at the rate of $18.44 per day. The second was to make local government infrastructure surtax audit changes which sought to assess American $609.99 in the surtax, together with delinquent penalties of $163.14 and interest through July 26, 1995, in the amount of $256.33, for a total of $1,029.46, with subsequent interest accruing at the rate of $.20 per day. It is not clear from the record how the Department arrived at the use tax and surtax figures. The alleged use tax assessment should have been calculated as $51,061.32 (six percent of the acquisition costs of the airplanes), and the alleged surtax assessment should have been calculated at the statutory maximum of $50 per item, for a total of $150. On August 28, 1995, American made a partial payment of $5,496.44 on the Department's use tax and surtax audit change assessments, intending to leave a disputed assessed amount of $51,061.32 in use tax and $150 in surtax. It is not clear from the record what American intended the $5,496.44 to apply towards. American filed an Informal Protest of the use tax and surtax audit change assessments on February 26, 1996. The Informal Protest contended that the use tax and surtax were not due and that the federal income tax depreciation schedules were "not determinative." On October 6, 1996, the Department issued a Notice of Decision denying American's protest primarily on the ground that the depreciation of the aircraft for federal income tax purposes constituted using them for use tax purposes. After receiving the Notice of Decision, on November 4, 1996, American filed amended tax returns to remove the depreciation of the airplanes (together with the "gross income from other rental activities" on Schedule K of the 1991 return). (Although CPA Shaw refused to admit it, it is clear that American's federal income tax returns were amended in order to improve its defense against the Department's use tax and surtax assessments.) As a result of the amended returns, American had to pay an additional $15,878 in federal income tax on the 1990 return; there was no change in the tax owed on any of the other returns. On November 6, 1996, American filed a Petition for Reconsideration on the ground that the returns had been amended and the additional federal income tax paid. On January 10, 1997, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration denying American's Petition for Reconsideration on the ground that "subsequent modifications made to the federal income tax returns will have no affect [sic] upon" the use tax and surtax assessments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the assessment of use tax and local government infrastructure surtax, delinquent penalties, and interest against American. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Albert J. Wollermann, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for proposed assessments of sales tax, interest, and penalty in the total amount of $38,739.48, through June 3, 1994, and local government infrastructure surtax, interest, and penalty in the total amount of $524.67, through June 3, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner purchases chemicals from manufacturers and resells the chemicals at retail. Among the chemicals that Petitioner purchases and resells are certain ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs) that are subject to two different federal taxes. One federal tax is found in Section 4681(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (IRC). IRC Section 4681(a)(1) imposes a tax on "any ozone-depleting chemical sold or used by the manufacturer, producer, or importer . . .." This is referred to as the "ODC tax." As interpreted by the Department of Treasury in regulations and rulings and applied by the Internal Revenue Service, IRC Section 4681(a)(1) imposes the ODC tax at the time of the sale or use of an ODC by the manufacturer, producer, or importer. As interpreted and applied by these federal agencies, the ODC tax is a liability exclusively of the manufacturer, producer, or importer; a purchaser from any of these entities is not liable to pay the ODC tax to the federal government. The federal government may not attach a lien on the ODCs, after they have been sold or used, if the manufacturer, producer, or importer has failed to pay the ODC tax. In this case, the ODC tax is imposed on the chemical manufacturer that sold the ODCs to Petitioner, and the tax is imposed at the time of the sale from the manufacturer to Petitioner. It is irrelevant that the manufacturer separately stated the ODC tax on invoices to Petitioner. The manufacturer could have separately stated other items of the cost of goods sold or general administration and overhead, such as the federal gasoline taxes that it paid in transporting the ODCs to Petitioner. The manufacturer's invoice has no bearing on the exclusive legal liability of the manufacturer, under IRC Section 4681(a)(1), to pay this federal excise tax. The other federal tax involved in this case is found in IRC Section 4682(h), which imposes a floor stocks tax on persons-other than the manufacturer, producer, or importer-holding ODCs for use in further manufacture or sale. Imposed after the payment of the ODC tax, this tax ensures that the ODC tax, which has increased over time, is not partially avoided by a retailer holding ODCs in inventory for a considerable period of time following their purchase from the manufacturer. Following an audit, Respondent issued on June 3, 1994, a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes of Tax, Penalties, and Interest under Chapter 212. The amount of sales tax due was $24,469.73 with a penalty of $8289.52 and interest through June 3 of $5980.23 and accruing at a daily rate of $8.04. Respondent issued on June 3, 1994, a Notice of Intent to Make Local Government Infrastructure Surtax Audit Changes under Section 212.054. The amount of surtax due was $351.43 with a penalty of $87.86 and interest through June 3 of $85.38 and accruing at a daily rate of $0.12. Respondent issued the proposed assessments because, in calculating sales tax and surtax on ODCs sold at retail, Petitioner reduced the actual sales price by the amount of federal ODC tax paid by the manufacturer and floor stocks tax paid by Petitioner. As noted above, though, federal law required Petitioner to pay, as a tax, only the floor stocks tax. Petitioner's payments to the manufacturer of an amount equal to the ODC tax paid by the manufacturer reflected only an agreement between Petitioner and the manufacturer as to how to characterize part of the purchase price. The sales price of the ODCs should have included the ODC tax, but not the floor stocks tax. The floor stocks tax is a legal obligation imposed on Petitioner and is based on its inventory of ODCs. As discussed in the following section, Petitioner is permitted by Respondent's rules to exclude these payments from the sales price of the ODCs. The record is not especially clear as to the amount of sales tax and surtax relief to which Petitioner is entitled on account of the floor stocks tax that it has paid. Petitioner paid approximately $21,500 in federal floor stocks tax in two forms: $20,418.80 in regular tax payments and about $1000 in tax payments following an audit. The record contains adequate proof of the $20,418.80 payment, but not of the $1000 additional payment following an audit. The $1000 represented Mr. Simmons' best estimate of the additional floor stocks tax that his company paid. Mr. Simmons retired from Dow Corning Chemical after a 37-year career in the chemical industry. He began Petitioner as a hobby, and he and his wife take obvious pride in the success of this business. Mr. Simmons is a careful reader of provisions of federal and state tax law. But without expert guidance from one of Petitioner's witnesses, who is one of a small number of IRS Revenue Agents specially trained in ODC taxes, IRC Section 4681(a)(1) lends itself to multiple interpretations. In good faith, Mr. Simmons tried to interpret the ODC tax through a careful reading of the statute and consideration of its placement in the IRC under Chapter 38, which is titled "Environmental Taxes," rather than Chapter 32, which is titled "Manufacturers Excise Taxes." As discussed below, ambiguous language in Respondent's rule may have furthered Mr. Simmons' understandable confusion on this point.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes the amounts assessed in the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes of Tax, Penalties, and Interest dated June 3, 1994, and Notice of Intent to Make Local Government Infrastructure Surtax Audit Changes dated June 3, 1994; provided, however, that the final assessments shall be reduced by the amount of the assessed penalties and shall be further reduced to reflect a reduction in total sales price of $21,418.80 with a corresponding reduction in interest. ENTERED on August 16, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on August 16, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance. The tax, surtax, and penalties are accurate. The interest figures appear accurate. However, these are not the Notices of Intent that were admitted into evidence in this case. 2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence and incorrect legally. 4: adopted. 5: rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. 6: (first sentence): adopted. 6: (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence and incorrect legally. 7-9: rejected as irrelevant. 10-12: adopted. 13-20: rejected as irrelevant. 21: rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's counsel states in this proposed finding: "The Instructions to Internal Revenue Service Form 6627 state that the entity which holds the subject Ozone-Depleting Chemicals for sale can be held responsible for the filing of said Form 6627." At best, this statement reflects a poor understanding of the multi-purpose Form 6627 and related instructions. Taxpayers use this form to report several taxes, including the ODC excise tax and floor stocks tax. Nothing whatsoever in Form 6627 or the instructions imposes any liability on Petitioner for the ODC excise tax. The only liability imposed on Petitioner in Form 6627 or the instructions is for the floor stocks tax. 22: rejected as repetitious. 23: adopted or adopted in substance. 24 (first sentence): adopted. 24 (remainder)-25: rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence and incorrect legal argument. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12-17: rejected as subordinate, irrelevant, and recitation of testimony. 18-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as recitation of testimony. 22: Adopted. 23: rejected as recitation of evidence. 24: rejected as subordinate. 25-26: adopted or adopted in substance. 27-29: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 30-44: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter W. Simmons, President Simmons Chemical Corporation 311 Sarasota Center Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34240 Bradley D. Magee Abel Band 240 South Pineapple Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34236 Olivia P. Klein Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Callagy Tires, Inc. (Petitioner), collected and remitted the correct amount of sales and use tax on its operations for the audit period.
Findings Of Fact DOR is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the tax laws of the state of Florida. In conjunction with that duty, DOR performs audits of business entities conducting sales and use transactions. At all times material to the issues of this case, Petitioner conducted business in Palm Bay, Florida, and was obligated to collect and remit sales and use tax in connection with the activities of its business enterprise. Petitioner’s Federal Identification Number is 59-2221722. Petitioner sells tires (wholesale and retail), provides tire services such as installation, and performs other repair and towing services subject to sales or use taxes. In order to properly perform its audit responsibilities, DOR requires that businesses maintain and present business records to support the collection of sales and use taxes. In this case, DOR notified Petitioner that it intended to audit the business operations for the audit period, June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2007. After the appropriate notice to Petitioner, the audit was initiated on or about July 18, 2007. Employees of DOR went to Petitioner’s place of business, requested business records, and attempted to audit and reconcile Petitioner’s reported tax payments with the amounts and types of taxes that should have been remitted, based upon the records kept by Petitioner. Theoretically, the sums remitted to the Department should match the records of the business entity. In this case, the amount remitted by Petitioner could not be reconciled with the business records maintained by the business entity. As a result of the audit, DOR sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes that claimed Callagy Tires, Inc., owed sales and use tax in the amount of $121,707.41. By letter dated August 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a protest of the audit findings. Thereafter, the parties exchanged information that Petitioner claimed should require reconsideration of the audit results. Nevertheless, the Department could not reconcile the bank and audit information based upon the documentation submitted by Petitioner. The amounts of the Notice of Reconsideration remain at issue. As of the time of the hearing in this cause, Petitioner had not provided documentation to refute the findings of the Department’s audit. At hearing, DOR maintained that Petitioner owes $173,718.66, together with accruing interest. Specifically, the audit found that there was a difference between the gross sales reported by Petitioner on its federal return and the amounts reported on its state forms. The difference between the two returns constituted unreported sales for state tax purposes. Secondly, the Department determined that certain sales were not “exempt” as maintained by Petitioner. Based upon a sample of invoices provided by Petitioner, DOR found that Petitioner did not remit the full sales tax due on certain types of services. For example, the correct sales tax was not remitted on machining brake rotors, truing brake rotors, or making repairs that included the use of tangible personal property. The taxable event required a calculation of sales tax on the entire amount, not a percentage of the cost. The third area of discrepancy identified by the audit, related to unpaid sales tax on machinery, equipment, supplies, and services purchased by Petitioner for use in the operation of its business. Throughout the audit process, and, subsequently, Petitioner never presented documentation to dispute the Department’s audit findings. DOR gave Petitioner every opportunity to present records that would establish that the correct amounts of sale and use taxes were collected and remitted. Petitioner timely challenged the audit findings, but, has not, through its principal owner or its agents, provided documentation that show the taxes were appropriately calculated and paid. Petitioner maintains that an amended federal tax return verifies the state return previously filed is accurate. Notwithstanding that assertion, Petitioner has not presented the underlying documentation to support the state or federal return. Further, Petitioner refused to allow DOR to review all of its electronically stored records, and did not make the records available to DOR.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the audit findings, and require the Petitioner to remit the unpaid sales and use taxes in the amount of $173,718.66, together with accrued interest, as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Eugene M. Callagy, Jr. Callagy Tires, Inc. 6625 Babcock Street, Southeast Malabar, Florida 32950 Patrick Hanley, Esquire 185 Forest Road Troy, Montana 59935-9572 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
Findings Of Fact On October 21, 1988, DOR issued a notice of assessment and jeopardy findings against petitioners alleging that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1987), they owed $16,681,820.07 for having "engaged in the unlawful sale, use, consumption, distribution, manufacture, derivation, production, transportation, or storage of a medicinal drug, cannabis, or a controlled substance." The notice alleged further that petitioners made up a criminal enterprise which, among other things, had been engaged in the activity of laundering money derived from the sale and distribution of illegal drugs (cocaine). (Exhibit A of petition for formal hearing) On December 19, 1988, petitioners filed a complaint against DOR in the circuit court of the thirteenth judicial circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. In that action, petitioners sought to have declared unconstitutional section 212.0505 and to contest DOR's jeopardy tax assessment. The complaint reflects that the contest of assessment was filed under Section 72.011, Florida Statutes (1987). (Exhibit A of amended motion for recommended order of dismissal) On December 19, 1988, petitioners filed a petition for formal hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) seeking to contest DOR's jeopardy tax assessment. (Exhibit A of petitioners' response to DOR's motion for recommended order of dismissal) A copy of the petition for formal hearing was received by DOR on December 20, 1988, or one day after the circuit court action was filed. (Exhibit B of amended motion for recommended order of dismissal)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's amended motion to dismiss the petition for formal hearing be GRANTED, and the petition be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: B. Gray Gibbs, Esquire One Fourth Street North Suite 800 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Katie D. Tucker, Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Office of the General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner owes additional sales and use tax, interest, and penalties, pursuant to a Notice of Proposed Assessment.
Findings Of Fact Ivan Soberal is the president and sole owner of Petitioner. Mr. Soberal started the business of Cycle Ivan's 12 years ago. At first, he operated as a sole proprietorship. He incorporated the business in 1997. This case commenced with Respondent's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Assessment dated October 23, 2002. The Notice of Proposed Assessment proposes the assessment of $26,917.69 in additional sales tax, $13,458.88 in penalty, and $9,417.61 in interest through October 23, 2002, for a total of $49,794.18. The notice warns: "If you choose to request either an administrative hearing or judicial proceeding, your request must be filed no later than FEBRUARY 20, 2003 or 60 days from the date the assessment becomes a Final Assessment." The notice adds: "The petition for an administrative hearing must be filed with the Department." Petitioner requested an administrative hearing by letter dated February 20, 2003, and received by, and filed with, Respondent on February 24, 2003. The audit period in this case is December 1, 1996, through November 30, 2001. During this time, Petitioner's business has been the sale and repair of motorcycles and scooters. Petitioner does not sell any new motorized vehicles with an engine displacement larger than 50 cc because doing so would require a dealer's license. Thus, most of the new motorized vehicles sold by Petitioner are small scooters manufactured in China or Japan. Petitioner sells used motorcycles on consignment. Over the years, Petitioner's business has transformed from primarily repairs to a greater emphasis on consignment sales to the present emphasis on part sales. This is an inadequate-records case. For the most part, the auditor used federal income tax returns and corporate income statements to calculate Petitioner's tax liability. The auditor had no cash register receipts, no journal entries, and limited bank statements (none for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2001 and only two months in 1999 and three months in 2000). During the audit period, Petitioner used primarily repair orders to record sales of goods or services. After the audit period, Petitioner computerized its recordkeeping for inventory and sales, but, until then, the available records are extremely limited. Respondent's auditor tried to use samplings of Petitioner's invoices to determine any sales tax deficiencies, but the records were poorly maintained. Taking a sample over the first six months of 2000, the auditor was unable to find invoices totaling thousands of dollars, thus making it appear that Petitioner over-reported taxable sales during these months. Obviously, Petitioner did not over-report taxable sales, but instead had removed invoices from the records that it had provided the auditor. Recognizing the impossibility of reassembling Petitioner's actual taxable sales from its incomplete and nonexistent records, the auditor resorted to Petitioner's federal income tax returns and, for 2001, corporate income statements. By these means, Respondent's auditor determined Petitioner's gross sales, treated them entirely as taxable sales, and calculated the sales tax due on these gross sales. After having done so, the auditor subtracted the taxes actually remitted by Petitioner during the audit period, and the remainder is the sales tax deficiency in this case. Petitioner's basic claim is that many of its sales during the audit period are exempt. However, Petitioner's manner of calculating exempt sales during the audit period was no better than its recordkeeping. Each month, Petitioner subtracted its taxable sales, or what it deemed to be its taxable sales, from its bank deposits, and the remainder was its exempt sales. This method, of course, results in potentially vast overstatements of exempt sales. Petitioner lacks resale or consumer certificates of exemption to support its exemption claims. Mr. Soberal admitted at the hearing that he did not keep records of exempt sales. Exempt sales for Petitioner would also include parts sold to locations outside of the United States, but the nature of Petitioner's business suggests that this type of transaction would not produce significant sales. The only significant exemption in this case is service-only repairs, such as when parts are not required for the repair or the customer provides the parts. The best way of accounting for service-only repairs is to calculate them from the auditor's workpapers for the six months in early 2000 that he sampled. These workpapers identify which invoices are for service only and which invoices include parts, accessories, or other tangible personal property. After calculating the total of service-only repairs, it is possible to derive a fraction with the numerator being the total price of the service-only repairs and the denominator being the total sales reported by Petitioner, which, for each month, was higher than the total gross sales shown on the invoices that Petitioner produced for the auditor. Because this fraction is based on sales during the first half of 2000, which is relatively late in the audit period, it probably represents a fair allocation of service versus sales. As noted above, service transactions predominated early in the audit period, but sales transactions (first of vehicles and later of parts) predominated later in the audit period. Thus, the reduction of total gross sales for the entire audit period by this fraction generated the most reliable estimate of taxable sales during the audit period from available records and still does not reward Petitioner for its failure to maintain records. For January 2000, the service-only repairs total $1052.50 out of total reported sales of $8095.88. For February 2000, the service-only repairs total $1739.99 out of total reported sales of $10,311.55. For March 2000, the service-only repairs total $372.50 out of total reported sales of $11,654.93. For April 2000, the service-only repairs total $796.76 out of total reported sales of $8877.07. For June 2000, the service-only repairs total $595.50 out of total reported sales of $15,970.71. For July 2000, the service-only repairs total $409.95 out of total reported sales of $10,280.58. For these six months, service-only repairs total $4967.20 out of total reported sales of $65,190.72. The resulting reduction is 7.6 percent. Applying the reduction to the sales tax deficiency proposed in the Notice of Proposed Assessment, the resulting tax deficiency is reduced by $2045.74 to a new total of $24,871.95.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's protest as untimely and sustaining the total amount set forth in the Notice of Proposed Assessment dated October 23, 2002, or, in the alternative, reducing the additional sales tax due to $24,871.95 and recalculating the penalty and interest accordingly. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 George B. Grosheim Qualified Representative Accounting Services of South Florida. 1210 Southeast 5th Street Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 Nicholas Bykowsky Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol--Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is qualified to be licensed as a Florida real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from Florida State University. After receiving a Florida license as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) in 1974, Petitioner worked as a CPA in private practice until 1978. He then returned to school at Trinity University, where he earned a Master of Science degree in Health Care Administration. Petitioner worked for the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) for approximately 20 years. In the early 1980's, Petitioner's job with HCA involved the management of physician clinics. One of the physicians requested Petitioner to prepare some financial statements and to assist with the preparations of some federal income tax returns for a private client. At that time, Petitioner was living and working in two locations: Atlanta, Georgia, and Dothan, Alabama. Petitioner was not licensed to practice as a CPA in any state except Florida. For approximately two and one-half years, Petitioner helped the private client maintain her books. During this time, Petitioner corresponded with the client, sending her letters with CPA after his name. In 1986, Petitioner decided to discontinue his business relationship with the private client. The private client, who was upset, filed a complaint against Petitioner. In 1987, the private client's complaint resulted in Petitioner’s pleading no contest to the offense of identifying himself as a CPA when he was not a licensed CPA in Georgia. Petitioner subsequently satisfied all sanctions related to the Georgia offense. The Florida Board of Accountancy has not disciplined Petitioner's CPA license. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner's Florida CAP license was inactive. In 1991, Petitioner received a stock bonus from his employer, HCA, when it purchased a private hospital. The bonus consisted of stock certificates in a spin-off company known as Quorum Health Care. The stock was restricted and could not be sold for five years. Petitioner never received a Federal Income Tax Form 1099 related to the stock bonus. Petitioner placed the stock certificates in his safe. He did not include the stock bonus on his personal federal income tax return. In 1994, the Internal Revenue Service audited Petitioner's personal tax returns. During the audit, Petitioner disclosed the stock bonus and immediately filed an amended income tax return, paying all tax and interest due and all penalties. In 1996, Petitioner filed a whistleblower lawsuit against his employer for Medicare fraud. Because the lawsuit was filed in Alabama, the United States Attorney in Birmingham, Alabama, intervened in the case. The lawsuit resulted in the recovery of $180,000,000 from Quorum Health Care. Petitioner was entitled to a whistleblower award in the amount of $5,000,000. In 1999, before Petitioner received his financial reward from the lawsuit, the United States Attorney in Birmingham, Alabama, advised Petitioner that he would be charged with failure to file a correct federal income tax return for the years 1991 and 1992. Petitioner granted the government's request to extend the statute of limitations while the government investigated the tax fraud allegations against him. In 2000, Petitioner pled guilty to income tax fraud and agreed to forego any reward for his participation in the whistleblower lawsuit. Petitioner was sentenced to serve two years in a federal prison, followed by one year of supervised probation. Petitioner also paid a $50,000 fine. Petitioner was incarcerated for 367 days. He was released from federal prison in August 2002. His supervised probation terminated February 2004. In January 2006, Petitioner's civil rights were restored. In an effort to prove rehabilitation, Petitioner presented evidence to show his involvement and/or active participation with the following: (a) his church; (b) children's sports programs; (c) Habitat for Humanity; (d) neighborhood hurricane recovery; (e) and other activities beneficial to his friends and family. The following three witnesses testified on Petitioner's behalf at the hearing: (a) Mike Papantonio, an attorney and Petitioner's brother-in-law; (b) Randal Spencer, a Florida licensed real estate broker who, along with his partners, sold a commercial building to Petitioner's wife; and (c) Carl Collins, Petitioner's neighbor since 2000. Each witness testified that Petitioner is honest, trustworthy, and of good character. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was owner/manager of CommStructure, a company that manufactures and installs cellular towers. Petitioner oversees all financial aspects of the company. Petitioner's wife owns a real estate brokerage company, Spencer Realty. If Petitioner becomes licensed as a real estate sales associate, he would assist his wife in her business. A real estate sales associate, like a CPA, is responsible for important financial transactions where accuracy is important. Therefore, a real estate sales associate must be trustworthy regarding financial matters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner a license as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel R. Biggins, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1020 Verona Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Nancy B. Hogan, Chairman Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue 1. Whether the Emergency Rules on Sales and Use Tax on Services and Other Transactions adopted by the Respondent effective July 1, 1987, were adopted pursuant to Section 33, Chapter 87-6, l987 Laws of Florida, and Section 120.54(9), Florida Statutes (1987)? 2. Whether Rules 12AER87-31(1)(c), (5), (7)(i)(7)(k), (10), (12) and (13), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility to implement, enforce and collect the taxes levied by the State of Florida, including Chapter 212, Florida Statutes (1987). During the 1987 Legislative Session the Legislature enacted Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 777, which is codified as Chapter 87-6, 1987 Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Chapter 87-6"). This act, which amended Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, was signed into law by the Governor on April 23, 1987. Section 5 of Chapter 87-6, created Section 212.0594, Florida Statutes. This new Section of Chapter 212 imposed a sales tax on construction services performed on or after July 1, 1987. Section 33 of Chapter 87-6, authorized the Respondent to adopt emergency rules pursuant to Section 120.54(9), Florida Statutes, to implement the new law. In authorizing the adoption of emergency rules, the Legislature determined that the failure to promptly implement the provisions of Chapter 87-6 would present an immediate threat to the welfare of the State because revenues needed for the operation of the State would not be collected. On June 6, 1987, the Legislature enacted Committee Substitute for House Bill 1506, which is codified as Chapter 87-101, 1987 Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Chapter 87-101"). Chapter 87-101 is commonly known as the Sales Tax Glitch Bill. Chapter 87-101 was passed by the Legislature on June 6, 1987, signed into law by the Governor on June 30, 1987, and was effective beginning July 1, 1987. Section 5 of Chapter 87-101 repealed Section 5 of Chapter 87-6. Section 6 of Chapter 87-101, created a new Section 212.0594, Florida Statutes, taxing construction services, in replace of the Section 212.0594, Florida - Statutes, previously created by Section 5 of Chapter 87-6. Thus the Legislature substantially changed the manner in which sales tax was to be imposed upon construction services. Section 20 of Chapter 87-101 amended Section 33 of Chapter 87-6 but continued the authorization to adopt emergency rules and the justification for doing so. On May 8, 1987, the Respondent published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to hold public meetings and workshops on May 19 and 26, 1987, and June 6, 1987. Proposed rules relating to Chapter 87-6 were to be considered at these meetings and workshops. On May 22, 1987, the Respondent published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to hold public meetings and workshops on May 26, 1987, and June 26, 1987. Proposed rules relating to Chapter 87-6 were to be considered at these meetings and workshops. On May 29, 1987, the Respondent published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to hold a public meeting and workshop on June 6, 1987, to consider proposed rules relating to Chapter 87-6. On June 5, 1987, the Respondent published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to hold a public meeting and workshop on June 12, 1987, to consider proposed rules relating to Chapter 87-6. Ultimately, the Respondent held four workshops concerning the emergency rules: May 19 and 26, 1987, and June 6 and 12, 1987. The workshop conducted on June 12, 1987, was conducted to consider Rules 12AER87-31, Florida Administrative Code. The rules considered at the June 12, 1987, workshop had been redrafted to implement Chapter 87-101. The rules considered at the workshop were available for a short period of time before the workshop and during the workshop. Comments were received by the Department at the June 12, 1987, workshop from the public, including representatives of the construction industry. As a result of these comments, changes in the Emergency Rules were made following the workshop. The Emergency Rules took into account the method of taxing construction services provided for in Chapter 87-101 rather than the method previously provided for in Chapter 87-6. The Respondent's emergency rules, including Rule 12AER87-31, Florida Administrative Code, were certified by the Executive Director of the Respondent and delivered to the Secretary of State for publication on June 18, 1987. The Respondent delivered the full text of the emergency rules, a statement of the specific reasons for finding an immediate danger, a statement of the reasons for concluding that the procedure followed to adopt the rules was fair under the circumstances and a summary of the purpose of the rules for publication in the first available issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The emergency rules had to be filed with the Secretary of State no later than June 18, 1987, in order to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly by July 1, 1987, the effective date of Chapters 87-6 and 87-101 and the emergency rules. The full text of the emergency rules was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on June 26, 1987. The text of this notice, which was accepted into evidence as Petitioner's exhibit 4, is hereby incorporated into this Final Order. The Emergency Rules had an effective date of July 1, 1987. Initially the Emergency Rules were to expire January 1, 1988, six months after their effective date, as specified in Chapter 87-101. Pursuant to Section 1, Chapter 87-539, 1987 Laws of Florida, the Emergency Rules are effective through June 30, 1988. Representatives of the Respondent and the Petitioner met between the passage of Chapter 87-101 by the Legislature and June 18, 1987, and discussed the act. The Respondent expended a great deal of time and effort in adopting the emergency rules implementing Chapters 87-6 and 87-101, and in providing information to the public. The method of taxation to be implemented was unique and, therefore, the Respondent was unable to look to other jurisdictions for guidance concerning implementation of the tax. The taxation of construction services was one of a multitude of services taxed. Chapter 87-101, required substantial redrafting of the emergency rules, including Rule 12AER87-31, Florida Administrative Code, within a relatively short period of time. The new tax necessitated the registration of 100,000 to 150,000 new sales tax "dealers" by July 1, 1987. Prior to July 1, 1987, the Respondent received thousands of telephone calls and thousands of written requests seeking information concerning the sales tax on services. The Respondent was extensively involved with the Legislature during the period of time when Chapters 87-6 and 87-101 were adopted. Representatives of the Respondent discussed the acts with Legislative members and staff. Dr. James Francis acted as a liaison between the Respondent and the Legislature. Dr. Francis also served on the Revenue Estimating Conference. In his capacity with the Revenue Estimating Conference, Dr. Francis prepared estimates of tax revenues from the services tax. A revenue impact analysis of the services tax was also provided by the Respondent to the Legislature based upon each amendment and proposed amendment to Chapters 87-6 and 87-101. Representatives of the petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with the method of taxation of construction services contained in Chapter 87-6 because of the required itemization of building material costs on each contract. The Respondent prepared a revenue neutral (no loss of tax revenue previously estimated to be generated by Chapter 87-6) method of imposing the services tax on construction services without requiring itemization of building material costs. Pursuant to this method, a set percentage, generally equal to the average percentage of building material costs, is backed out of "contract price" or "cost price." The remainder is treated as the amount of the "contract price" or "cost price" attributable to the construction services. The revenue estimated by the Respondent and provided to the Legislature, based upon the elimination of an average percentage of building material costs, was based upon the inclusion in "contract price" and "cost price" of all expenditures associated with the construction industry, including the total expenditures for building materials supplied by owners to contractors. The Legislature was aware of this fact before it adopted Chapter 87-101. Fiscal notes for Chapter 87-101, which the Respondent had available prior to the adoption of the Emergency Rules, numerically quantified the estimated revenue to be generated by Chapter 87-101. The Respondent also knew what amounts were included in the estimate of revenue contained in the fiscal notes. These amounts were consistent with the revenue estimates provided by the Respondent to the Legislature. The Emergency Rules represent a contemporaneous administrative construction of Chapters 87-6 and 87-101 by an agency charged with responsibility to administer the acts and which was intimately involved in the adoption of the acts. The Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rules 12AER87-31(1)(c), (5), (7)(i), (7)(k), (10), (12) and (13) Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner withdrew its challenge of other portions of the Emergency Rules. Rule 12AER87-31(7)(i), Florida Administrative Code, defines the terms "contract price" which determines the amount of tax due on construction work performed pursuant to a contract and any speculative construction which is sold within six months of completion. The Petitioner has challenged Rule 12AER87-31(7)(i), Florida Administrative Code, to the extent that contract price is defined to include the fair market value of materials used by a contractor if the value of those materials is not otherwise included in the contract price. The Petitioner's contractor witnesses' understanding of Rule 12AER87- 31(7)(i), Florida Administrative Code, that the fair market value of materials supplied by the owner are to be included in the computation of contract price, is consistent with the Respondent's interpretation of the Rule. Prime contractors often estimate the cost of building materials in their daily business activities. The Respondent's interpretation of Rule 12AER87-31(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, does not require a contractor or subcontractor who uses building materials which are purchased tax free to remit a tax. The rule simply makes it clear that there is not necessarily any link between the question of whether the purchase of building materials and the provision of construction services are tax exempt.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's certificate of registration to collect sales tax should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, the Respondent and Lance Arnette were engaged in a dissolution of marriage action in the circuit court, Case No. 96-1185-FD. On June 20, 1997, the business known as Giff’s Sub Shop was awarded to Respondent, Linda Arnette. The circuit court transferred the business to Respondent free of any and all liabilities. Later, Respondent discovered that there was an undisclosed sales tax liability. The amount of that liability was not clear from the record. However, the Department was not a party to the Arnette’s dissolution of marriage action. On March 3, 1998, Respondent filed an application for a certificate of registration with the Department. The reason for the application was due to the change of ownership from Respondent’s ex-husband to Respondent. The application reflected an opening date for the business of June 1, 1997. Linda Arnette was reflected as the owner of the business. Respondent was the only person who signed the application. No other person was listed as having an interest in the sub shop. The certificate of registration was issued to Respondent and she became the registered dealer for the sub shop. As such, she was under a legal duty to collect and remit all taxes collected by the sub shop to the Department. She was also responsible to file tax returns for the business with the Department. Her first return would have been due on July 20, 1997. A tax warrant or lien for unpaid taxes was filed against Respondent on October 26, 2005. It is unclear what happened with the 2005 warrant. Department records reflect that the sub shop did not file returns for November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, and February 2007. A second tax warrant for unpaid taxes was filed against Respondent on April 4, 2007. The warrant covered the period from August 2003 to February 2007. The amount of tax due under the warrant was $14,658.07, plus interest and penalties. The 2003 date was well after Respondent had taken over operation of the sub shop from her ex-husband. The evidence did not show that the amount included any taxes which may have been due prior to her award of the sub shop in 1997 or prior to the August 2003 date. Moreover, the warrant did not include months for which Respondent had timely paid the tax due. Data from the Department revocation worksheet showed that Respondent owed only interest for the months of August 2003 and March through August, 2006. The fact she owed only interest in those months indicates that the taxes were paid late. The Department’s data showed the month of December 2005 with zero tax due and zero interest due. It is not clear from the evidence why the Department claimed the month of December 2005 was out of compliance. However, even without the month of December 2005, the Department’s data showed 30 months of noncompliance by Respondent either by not filing timely or not paying the tax. On March 2, 2007, the Department sent Respondent a notice of its intent to revoke her certificate of registration. An informal meeting was scheduled for April 17, 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to permit Respondent to present evidence on why her certificate of registration should not be revoked and to show that the amount of taxes due was incorrect. Respondent attended the meeting on April 17, 2007. The Department waived the penalties due on her tax liability. Interest due totaled $2,857.68. Respondent did not raise any issue regarding her ex-husband’s past tax liability or any payments she had allegedly made thereon. Indeed, Respondent’s argument regarding payment on her ex-husband’s past tax liability did not make sense and was not borne out by the evidence. Respondent did file her tax returns for November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, and February 2007. It was unclear, if Respondent brought her account books for the sub shop to the meeting. Respondent’s own books reflect that she reported tax liability for the period August 2003 through August, 2006 in the amount of $25,133.97, and through December 2006, she owed $27,620.97. Respondent’s records did not reflect the return amounts for 2007. Her records also reflect that for the period August 2003 through August 2006, she paid $13,311.68 and through December 2006, she paid $16,029.68 to the Department. Returns filed with the Department for 2007 totaled $1,379.78 though February 2007. In 2007, Respondent’s records reflect that through April 2007, she paid $1,912.08 to the Department. In short, Respondent’s own records reflect that for the period August 2003 through August 2006, she owed past due taxes in the amount of $11,822.19 and through December 2006, she owed past due taxes in the amount of $11,591.29. Her own records reflect she had repeatedly not complied with the requirements of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, to timely remit and pay taxes. More importantly, Respondent entered into a compliance agreement with the Department at the April 17, 2007, meeting. In the agreement, Respondent admitted she owed taxes in the amount of $14,658.07, plus interest in the amount of $2,857.68, for a total of $17,515.75, to the Department. She admitted she had not complied with Sections 212.14(1), 212.14(2) and 212.15(1), Florida Statutes, regarding timely filing of returns and timely payment of taxes. These failures were repeated. Additionally, Respondent agreed to timely file all tax returns for the period April 2007 through March 2008, timely pay all tax due for the same period, as well as, comply with the payment schedule for the past due amount referenced above. Failure to abide by the terms of the compliance agreement would permit the Department to initiate revocation of the Respondent’s certificate of registration and the use of the compliance agreement to establish the facts of the earlier noncompliance with Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent made the payments required under the payment schedule in the compliance agreement, but did not make such payments timely. Her most current return was late. Respondent also paid the current taxes due each month, but did not timely pay those taxes. Thus, Respondent has accrued $2,519.96 in interest and $214.22 in penalties through July 18, 2007, in addition to the amount she agreed was due in the compliance agreement. Given this history, Respondent has clearly not complied with the requirements of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and her certificate of registration should be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent’s certificate of registration pursuant to Section 212.18, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 14th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren J. Bird, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 101 Revenue Litigation Bureau Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Glen M. Swiatek, Esquire 5 Clifford Drive Shalimar, Florida 32579 Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Lisa Echeverri, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether the Application for Registration as an Associated Person filed by Petitioner should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person of Noble Investment Company of Palm Beach. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of February 1993. 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 17th day of February 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen M. Camechis H. Richard Bisbee Assistant General Counsels Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ardith H. Steele 1639 South University Drive Plantation, Florida 33324 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1992, there were several Democratic candidates for the office of Tax Collector for Walton County. Among the Democratic candidates was Sue Carter who had been employed in the Walton County Tax Collector's Office prior to resigning to run for tax collector. The first Democratic primary was held in September, 1992, resulting in a runoff primary between Sue Carter and Sue Rushing in October, 1992. Ms. Carter defeated Ms. Rushing. In November, 1992, Sue Carter won the general election. Respondent, Teresa Gomillion (Gomillion), was employed in the Walton County Tax Collector's Office in 1992. Pat Pollard, Tammy Day, Patty Lynch, and Sylvia Rushing were also employed in the tax collector's office during the 1992 election campaign. Ms. Lynch and Gomillion supported Ms. Carter. Ms. Day did not support Ms. Carter. Ms. Rushing was related to Sue Rushing, Ms. Carter's opponent. Ms. Pollard did not support any candidate for the office of tax collector. Pat Pollard's work station was located about three feet away from Gomillion's work station. She overheard Gomillion ask a customer of the tax collector's office for whom he was going to vote. This was the only time that Ms. Pollard heard Gomillion talk to a customer concerning the race for tax collector. Gomillion and other employees in the tax collector's office did discuss the race for tax collector during office hours. Pam Dyess has been employed at a car dealership in DeFuniak Springs for 16 years. During 1992, her job responsibilities required her to go to the tax collector's office to handle the tag and title work for the dealership. After the first primary, Ms. Dyess went to the tax collector's office during working hours and while she was there the subject of the first primary was discussed. Ms. Dyess stated that she had voted for Harley Henderson. Ms. Gomillion joined the conversation and asked Ms. Dyess why she had voted for Harley Henderson and made some disparaging remarks about Mr. Henderson's qualifications. Rodney Ryals is now and was an employee of the City of DeFuniak Springs during the fall of 1992. During the election, Mr. Ryals spent a great deal of time at the tax collector's office taking care of city business and visiting with his friend Ms. Pollard. While Ryals was at the tax collector's office Gomillion told him, "You better vote for Sue Carter, she's the only qualified candidate." Ryals had told Gomillion and Ms. Lynch that they should not campaign on the job because it was illegal. Both women told him that if they did not politick that they might lose their jobs. Both Jack Little, the tax collector, and Ms. Carter had advised Gomillion not to politick in the tax collector's office. Having judged the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, I find that Gomillion did not hand out campaign literature while she was on the job at the tax collector's office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a final order finding that Teresa Gomillion violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, and recommending a civil penalty of $500 and a public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2067EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted to the extent that Ms. Gomillion had solicited Mr. Ryals' vote but rejected as far as Mr. Ryals observing Ms. Gomillion soliciting other customers. Paragraph 12: Having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I find that Mr. Ryals testimony that Ms. Gomillion handed out campaign literature not to be credible. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 15-16: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 4: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as constituting both recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraph 5: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected to the extent that it implies that Ms. Gomillion properly performed her duties. The greater weight of the evidence shows that Ms. Gomillion's actions were prohibited by the tax collector and were not part of her duties. Paragraphs 6-8: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 9: The first sentence is accepted in substance except as it relates to Ms. Gomillion's solicitation of Mr. Ryals. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 10: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 11-12: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 14: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 15-16: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 17: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 18-19: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 20: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 21-22: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 24: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 25: The first sentence is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Michael E. Ingram Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs, PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 E. Allan Ramey, Esquire 13 Circle Drive Post Office Box 369 Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433-0369 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, Esquire General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
