The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner owes money to Respondent due to an overpayment of compensation.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Respondent has employed Petitioner. By Stipulation, the parties agree that Respondent overpaid Petitioner the sum of $6282.41 by check dated February 14, 2005. The dispute is whether Respondent is entitled to repayment of an additional $2332 in withheld federal income taxes associated with the agreed-upon overpayment. On the date of the overpayment in February 2005, Respondent credited Petitioner with the gross sum of $9328. The net payment to Petitioner was $6282.41. The difference between the gross and the net was $2332 in withheld federal income taxes and $713.59 in employee-paid FICA and Medicaid. Respondent is not seeking repayment of the employee-paid FICA and Medicaid. Respondent discovered the error on December 31, 2005, so it was unable to process the paperwork necessary correct the situation with the tax withholding in the same tax year of 2005. By failing to discover the error in time to process the paperwork in the same tax year, Respondent was unable to effectively reverse the withholding transaction with the Internal Revenue Service. Thus, when Petitioner filed his 2005 federal income tax return, his gross income included this overpayment, and the amount of tax already paid included the $2332 that was erroneously withheld in Respondent's overpayment in February 2005. It is thus clear that Respondent overpaid Petitioner $6282.41 in net pay plus $2332 in income taxes that it withheld from Petitioner and submitted, to Petitioner's credit, to the Internal Revenue Service. The total overpayment is therefore $8614.41.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order determining that, due to an overpayment in 2005, Petitioner shall repay $8614.41, upon such terms, if any, as the department shall determine. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2006, 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 24th day of October, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony J. Schembri, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 Michael B. Golen Assistant General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Theodore E. Morakis 11904 Southwest 9th Manor Davie, Florida 33325
The Issue Whether Respondent properly assessed a tourist development tax, penalty, and interest against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Tax Collector is empowered to impose a tourist development tax (“TDT”) on the privilege of renting, leasing, or letting “for consideration of any living or accommodations in any hotel, apartment hotel, motel, [or] resort motel.” § 125.0104(3)(a)1., Fla. Stat. The Tax Collector is the entity operating pursuant to Palm Beach County Ordinance, Chapter 17, Article III, Section 17-111 through 116, and is authorized to impose TDT at a six percent rate on taxpayers. See also § 125.0104(4)(a), Fla. Stat. As part of its duties, Respondent audits taxpayers and attempts to recover TDT owed. At all times material to this case, Homing Inn was a 103-room hotel located in Boynton Beach, Florida. As a taxpayer and operator of a hotel that rents rooms, Homing Inn was subject to audit of its revenues by Respondent. Respondent initiated an audit against Petitioner for the period of July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2019 (“audit period”), to determine if Petitioner had properly remitted TDT, as reflected on Petitioner’s TDT returns. In July 2019, Suzanne Englhardt (“Englhardt” or “Auditor”), revenue auditor, was assigned to conduct Homing Inn’s audit. Englhardt started the audit of Homing Inn by conducting pre-audit research, which included her looking up Petitioner on Sunbiz, the property appraisers’ website, and preparing an audit notice. On or about July 3, 2019, Englhardt sent Homing Inn a certified notice informing Petitioner that their account had been selected for a Tourist Development Audit (“audit”) of Petitioner’s books and records. In the notice, Respondent requested Homing Inn “make available all records, receipts, invoices, and related documentation” to review for the audit. Petitioner complied with Respondent’s request for records and provided bank statements for November 2017 through June 2019; federal income tax returns for years 2016, 2017, and 2018; and room revenue reports, which were typed pages of purported revenue reported by Petitioner on its TDT returns. After Homing Inn provided the records, Englhardt reviewed the submitted documentation and found that Homing Inn failed to maintain records of sales at the hotel. As a result, Englhardt used the best information supplied and available to conduct the audit, Petitioner’s federal tax returns and bank statements. She did not utilize Petitioner’s revenue reports during the audit because no source documents were provided to support or back up any of the listed numbers typed on the revenue reports. 2018 Englhardt started the audit by reviewing Petitioner’s 2018 gross income reported on its supplied federal income tax return in the amount of $1,122,076.00. Englhardt compared the supplied 2018 bank deposits on the bank statements that amounted to $1,122,048.73 to the federal income tax return. Englhardt also reviewed Petitioner’s 2018 TDT returns, which amounted to $653,202.13. Homing Inn did not provide Respondent any documentation to account for the difference in reported income. Next, Englhardt decided that since the gross revenues on the federal income tax return and the bank deposit statements balanced, she presumed TDT and sales tax were included. After she backed out the six percent TDT and seven percent sales tax, the Auditor ultimately calculated and arrived at the adjusted income of $992,963.48 that she utilized to calculate the additional TDT. Englhardt calculated the additional TDT by subtracting the income reported by Petitioner on the TDT returns, $653,202.13, from the gross adjusted amount she established, $992,963.48, and determined that the total unreported income was $339,761.85. She then charged a six percent rate of TDT, which lead to the additional TDT of $20,385.68 for 2018. Englhardt calculated the remaining years of the audit with the same methodology. 2016 When auditing 2016, Englhardt reviewed Homing Inn’s 2016 federal income tax return provided and determined that Petitioner’s gross income was $1,042,188.00. However, when the Auditor looked at the income reported on the 2016 TDT returns, the amount differed, and the reported income on the TDT returns was $724,929.42. Englhardt backed out the TDT and sales tax from the income reported on the federal tax return and ultimately calculated and arrived at the adjusted income of $922,290.27. Next, Englhardt subtracted the reported income on the TDT return from the adjusted income and determined the total 2016 unreported income was $197,360.85. To determine the additional TDT taxes Homing Inn owed, Englhardt charged the six percent rate by $197,360.85 for an additional $11,841.53 owed. 2017 Englhardt reviewed Homing Inn’s 2017 federal income tax return and determined the gross income reported was $1,032,331.00. Englhardt also reviewed Petitioner’s 2017 TDT returns, which amounted to $658,435.37. Englhardt backed out TDT and sales tax from the income reported on the federal tax return and ultimately calculated and arrived at the adjusted income of $913,567.26. Next, Englhardt subtracted the reported income on the TDT return from the adjusted income to determine the total 2017 unreported income was $255,131.89. To determine the additional TDT taxes Homing Inn owed, Englhardt charged the unreported income of $255,131.89 by the six percent rate for an additional $15,307.91 owed. 2019 Englhardt reviewed Homing Inn’s bank statements from January 2019 to June 2019 to determine the 2019 gross income. The total deposits reported were $614,992.28. Englhardt also reviewed Petitioner’s 2019 TDT returns, which amounted to $350,925.07. Englhardt backed out TDT and sales tax from the income reported from the deposits on the bank statements, and ultimately calculated and arrived at the adjusted income of $544,240.96. Next, Englhardt subtracted the reported income on the TDT return from the adjusted income and determined the total 2019 unreported income was $193,315.89. To determine the additional TDT taxes Homing Inn owed for 2019, Englhardt charged the unreported income of $193,315.89 by the six percent rate for an additional $11,598.95 owed. After completing the audit, Englhardt added the unreported income for each year and the TDT amounts owed. She found that Homing Inn had a total unreported income of $985,569.97 and owed an additional TDT of $59,134.20 from the audit period. On or about September 27, 2019, the Tax Collector issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes to Petitioner (“Notice of Intent”) and advised Petitioner of the additional TDT in the amount of $59,134.20 owed. The Notice of Intent also notified Homing Inn that Respondent also sought a penalty and interest and provided, in pertinent part: The $59,134.20 total tax due was carried over from the Summary of Tax Due scheduled to the Calculation of Tax Penalty and Interest spreadsheet. The floating rate of interest on tax due is based on the applicable rates established by the Florida Department of Revenue, which is currently an annual rate of 9%. As also prescribed by the State due to findings previously identified in a prior audit, penalty is assessed at 100% of tax due per Florida Statute 212.07(3)(b). As of 09/30/2019, Mata Chorwadi Inc., d/b/a: Homing Inn, currently owes a total of $125,460.97 in tax, penalty and interest. On or about December 16, 2019, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment (“NOPA”). Petitioner requested and was granted an extension until April 14, 2020, to respond to the NOPA. On or about April 11, 2020, Petitioner timely protested Respondent’s audit findings. Petitioner’s protest letter claimed that the unreported revenue was made up of Homing Inn’s snack sales sold for $1.00 each; coins collected from a laundromat; proceeds from additional room cleaning services; and proceeds from charges for lost room keys. Petitioner informed Respondent in the protest letter that all the unreported revenue was deposited in the hotel’s bank account. Petitioner requested that Respondent fully abate the penalties and interest for reasonable cause and not willful neglect pursuant to section 213.21(3)(a), Florida Statutes. To support its position in the protest, Petitioner produced purchase receipts from Sam’s Club, which included purchases for snacks and cleaning supplies, and produced a laundry room collection log allegedly showing the coins collected from the laundromat at Homing Inn. Homing Inn did not produce any documents to show any revenue allegedly earned for additional cleaning services or lost room keys. On or about May 4, 2020, Respondent issued the Notice of Decision denying Homing Inn’s protest letter and sustaining the assessment. The Tax Collector considered Homing Inn’s argument and documents, but determined that Petitioner did not provide any proof that the snacks, coins listed on the collection log, or other expenses accounted for the unreported revenue since the Tax Collector was not provided any documents from Homing Inn relating to alleged revenue for additional cleaning services or lost room keys, sales receipts, or bank deposit slips that correspond to verify the amounts listed on the collection log. On June 3, 2020, Petitioner timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”). Homing Inn disputed the assessment and penalty and asked that it be reevaluated. Homing Inn again asserted in its Motion that the unreported revenue consisted of snack sales, revenue from the laundromat, revenue from additional cleaning services, and revenue from lost room keys. However, Petitioner did not provide any additional documents to support its position. On June 9, 2020, Respondent issued a Notice of Reconsideration-Final Assessment (“Notice of Reconsideration”) denying the Motion and sustaining the assessment since no new information was provided by Petitioner. The Tax Collector also notified Petitioner in the Notice of Reconsideration how to appeal the Tax Collector’s decision if Homing Inn was not in agreement with the tax assessment and stated, in pertinent part: If the taxpayer is not in agreement with the assessment, pursuant to Florida Statute 72.011, Mata Chorwadi Inc. may contest the assessment by “filing an action in circuit court; or, alternatively, the taxpayer may file a petition under the applicable provisions of chapter 120.” As a settlement offer, Petitioner remitted a $28,000.00 check to Respondent dated June 8, 2020, that had “paid in full” on the memo line. Respondent returned the check to Homing Inn since the amount was not for the assessment due. Afterwards, Petitioner remitted a second check in the amount of $28,000.00. Respondent applied the $28,000.00 to the total outstanding balance of Homing Inn’s tax. On July 17, 2020, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Chapter 120 Hearing contesting tax, penalty, and interest from the Tax Collector’s assessment in the Notice of Reconsideration and requested a hearing. Audit History In 2007, Homing Inn had been audited by the Tax Collector. The first audit resulted in Petitioner owing additional TDT based on unreported revenue. The current audit is the second audit of Homing Inn for TDT. Hearing At hearing, Englhardt testified that at the beginning of the audit, Petitioner informed her that all records before November 2017 were destroyed in a flood and could not be provided. Englhardt testified that snack sales, laundry coins, key card replacement monies, and room cleaning proceeds were not revenues subject to TDT. However, she explained during the hearing, that Homing Inn failed to provide any documents to demonstrate sales or revenue for the items they were asserting, so she was not able to make any of the revenue deductions Petitioner requested. At hearing, Englhardt addressed in detail each item Petitioner was contesting and all of the documentation Homing Inn provided the Tax Collector requesting a reduction of the assessment amount determined from the audit. Englhardt started with Homing Inn’s purchase receipts for the snacks supplied. On the point of snacks, Englhardt testified that she asked Homing Inn for sales receipts during the conference they had so that she could adjust for the snacks. However, Homing Inn never provided any sales receipts. Englhardt explained that the receipts supplied by Homing Inn demonstrated expenses, not revenue, so she could not use the documents supplied for the audit. Englhardt also explained that she did not use the coin laundry log because Homing Inn did not provide any deposit slips to back up those alleged deposits. She needed additional source documentation to delineate that particular revenue stream, and Petitioner failed to provide documentation to substantiate any of the items on the log. Englhardt explained further that she was not able to use the alleged extra cleaning charge proceeds for the audit because there was nothing to quantify it. There was no audit trail, folios, sales receipts, or anything to demonstrate any such payments. Englhardt also explained that the alleged charge of $5 per lost key was considered. She testified that she saw the purchase receipt for the room keys but could not use it because nothing showed revenue for lost keys. There were no customer bills, folios, or credit card receipts. Englhardt testified she had to conduct the audit following section 212.12(5)(b), Florida Statutes, because if records were unavailable, she was to make an assessment from an estimate based on the best information available, which for Homing Inn were the federal income tax returns, TDT reports, and bank statements that she used. Englhardt also testified that she considered Homing Inn’s request to reduce the assessment amount, but denied it, because there was no documentation to make any reductions or adjustments. At hearing, Englhardt also addressed the interest and penalty the Tax Collector was imposing. She explained that the penalty is 100 percent, according to the statute, if there is a previous audit finding as there had been with Homing Inn. She also testified that interest is “never compromised.” Englhardt also testified that she applied the $28,000.00 remitted by Homing Inn to the tax, which reduced their TDT of $59,134.20 to $31,134.20, but the penalty amount was still the $59,134.20, and $7.66 per day interest. At hearing, Homing Inn produced purchase receipts for snacks and cleaning supplies, Exhibit 3; a laundromat collection log, Exhibit 4; purchase receipts for key cards, Exhibit 5; a list showing charges for room damages and a list of additional cleaning services, Exhibit 7; and a copy of a check that represented repayment for a loan, Exhibit 6. Homing Inn used its corporate representative, Dipika Shah (“Shah”), to testify at hearing. Shah explained that her husband owns Homing Inn, and she works at the desk occasionally, but mainly runs errands and purchases items needed for the hotel. Shah testified that all income collected from the snacks, key cards, and other revenues are deposited in one bank, PNC Bank. Shah explained that the computer system checks guests in and out. There are four or five people that work at the desk. She testified there are weekly customers, and the weekly rental comes with one cleaning. If a customer wants an additional cleaning, it is an additional $20.00 per room cleaning. Shah also testified that there is an additional charge for any room damage, but often times the damage amount is not paid. Shah described the Homing Inn’s coin-operated laundromat on the hotel premises contained four washers and four dryers. She explained that her husband pulls the coins out of the machines, logs the amount collected, rolls up the coins, and makes laundromat deposits in the Homing Inn general bank account. Shah admitted that she has no personal knowledge of what her husband has collected. Shah verified the purchase of 5,800 room key cards at hearing. However, she admitted there was no receipts for sales of lost keys in the amount of $5.00 each to customers. Shah also explained that Homing Inn has snacks for purchase. Shah testified that Homing Inn does not keep records of snacks sales and most of the snack purchases are cash. Shah testified that their accountant prepares the TDT returns monthly. Shah testified that she is unsure if the business maintains a general ledger and has never seen a profit and loss statement for the business. Findings of Ultimate Fact In this case, the Tax Collector established that the audit giving rise to this proceeding was properly conducted. After reviewing the records Homing Inn submitted for the audit, the Auditor determined that the amounts on the bank statements and federal tax returns matched, but the amounts listed in Homing Inn’s TDT returns were underreported. Homing Inn failed to provide the Auditor with any records to account for the difference between the federal income tax and TDT returns. The Auditor correctly performed Homing Inn’s audit using an acceptable methodology of assessing unreported revenue based on the federal income tax returns, bank statements, and income reflected in the TDT returns. During the audit, Petitioner failed to supply requested records to the Tax Collector that accurately reflected sales at the hotel or source documentation that explains any of the contested unreported revenue. Therefore, the Auditor could not use Petitioner’s supplied documentation as part of the calculations for the audit to reduce the assessment amount. Additionally, the record is void of any evidence to support reducing the assessment amount for any snack sales, laundromat revenue, cleaning revenue, key sale monies, and room damage proceeds. Shah’s limited involvement and knowledge in the daily operations of Homing Inn did not allow her to present relevant firsthand testimony or competent evidence to support Petitioner’s assertions. Therefore, the Auditor properly determined Petitioner’s TDT liability utilizing the method in section 212.12(5)(b), which allows the Auditor to rely on an estimation for the assessment when the taxpayer fails to provide records for the audit, and the Tax Collector’s assessment of $59,134.20 tax is proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Palm Beach County Tax Collector, enter a final order directing Mata Chorwadi, Inc., d/b/a Homing Inn, to pay the Tax Collector’s assessment for $31,134.20 of TDT; $59,134.20 of penalty; and $12,444.95 of interest, accruing at $7.66 per day. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Orfelia Mayor, General Counsel Palm Beach County Tax Collector 301 North Olive Avenue Post Office Box 3715 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3715 Rex D. Ware, Esquire Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A. 3500 Financial Plaza, Suite 330 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Joseph C. Moffa, Esquire Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A. Trade Center South, Suite 930 100 West Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Manshi Shah, Esquire 6525 Jessy Court Lake Worth, Florida 33467 Jonathan W. Taylor, Esquire Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A. Trade Center South, Suite 930 100 West Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Hampton C. Peterson, General Counsel Palm Beach County Tax Collector 301 North Olive Avenue Post Office Box 3715 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3715
Findings Of Fact On September 30, 2010, Petitioner submitted an online application for a tax registration as a new business entity. Respondent began the process of creating an internal "account" for Petitioner on October 1, 2010. On October 2, 2010, Respondent's database system created a delinquency notice advising Petitioner that sales and use tax returns for calendar years 2007, 2008, and 2009 had not been received. On October 4, 2010, Respondent received an envelope from Petitioner containing sales and use tax returns for calendar years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, as well as Petitioner's signed Tax Amnesty Agreement. No remittance accompanied the tax returns (or the remittance check was misplaced), so the Department's system generated a billing notice to Petitioner dated December 10, 2010, and a Notice of Final Assessment dated January 25, 2011. Petitioner advised Respondent that a check had been sent along with the tax returns. Discussions between the parties ensued, and Petitioner was asked to provide a replacement check. On or about March 11, 2011, Respondent received a replacement payment from Petitioner. Petitioner, by way of his replacement check, paid the Department the sum of one thousand eighty-nine dollars and forty-three cents ($1,089.43) in full settlement of all amounts due and owing under Petitioner's sales and use tax returns for calendar years 2007, 2008, 2009, and, although not included in the initial petitions, 2010. Respondent accepted the payment made by Petitioner in full settlement of the sales and use taxes owed for the years in question. Petitioner is not liable for any further penalties, interest, or other payments on the aforementioned tax returns.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitions for administrative hearing in this case be dismissed, as there are no further disputed issues of material fact. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Patrick John McGinley, Esquire Law Office of Patrick John McGinley, P.A. 2265 Lee Road, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a food service worker in the cafeteria at Ballard Elementary School. Respondent was hired by Petitioner on November 5, 1998. Prior to the incidents giving rise to the Complaint, Respondent had a relatively good employment record, with two disciplinary matters documented in her personnel file. On September 17, 2001, Respondent was given a written reprimand for refusing to follow her supervisor's directions and giving inappropriate verbal responses. More recently, on April 16, 2012, Respondent received a verbal reprimand for not properly accounting for student meals. Just days after Respondent received a verbal reprimand related to accounting for student meals, a vehicle in which Respondent was a passenger was stopped by a police detective. As described below, this traffic stop ultimately led to Respondent's arrest and subsequent third-degree felony charge for engaging in a scheme to defraud in an amount less than $20,000, in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2011).1/ On February 21, 2013, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge. Adjudication was withheld, pending Respondent's successful completion of a five-year term of probation with specified conditions. The circumstances giving rise to the criminal charge against Respondent were described in detail by the City of Bradenton Police Department detective who arrested Respondent. The detective testified that on April 20, 2012, he pulled over a vehicle for failing to stop at a stop sign. The detective approached the passenger side of the vehicle, where Respondent was seated. The detective observed a laptop computer on Respondent's lap, open and in use with a portable internet access device, but Respondent quickly shut the laptop as the detective approached. For reasons that are not germane to the Complaint in this case, the detective instructed Respondent to exit the vehicle, and he placed her in handcuffs. The detective asked for identification, and Respondent told him it was in her purse, which she had placed on the passenger seat when she exited the vehicle. The detective retrieved Respondent's purse and looked inside for her identification. In addition to Respondent's identification, the detective also found several Visa debit cards with different people's names on them. Also in the purse were written instructions for filing tax returns through TurboTax, along with ledgers containing names, social security numbers, dates of birth, and other personal identification information. Some of the names on the ledgers matched the names on the debit cards found in Respondent's purse. Respondent was arrested for an unrelated matter and transported back to the police station for questioning. At the police station, Respondent was given her Miranda rights and then questioned about the laptop and material found in her purse. In her post-Miranda interview, Respondent told the detective that the laptop was hers, but she had sold it to a woman she knew only as "Tiffany" for $200. Respondent told the detective that she and Tiffany entered into an arrangement whereby Respondent would assist Tiffany in a scheme to file tax returns in other people's names using TurboTax. The TurboTax filings would direct that the tax refunds, issued on debit cards, be sent to Respondent's residence. For each debit card received pursuant to this scheme, Tiffany would pay Respondent $500, with one exception: Respondent admitted to the detective that she gave her mother's personal information to Tiffany, who filed a tax return in Respondent's mother's name; for this debit card, the deal was that Respondent and Tiffany would split the amount of the tax refund 50-50. Respondent gave information to the detective regarding where "Tiffany" could be found, but there was no "Tiffany" at the place Respondent identified. The detective determined through a search of Respondent's laptop that Turbotax had been in use when he approached the vehicle and saw Respondent quickly closing the computer. However, Respondent admitted that she had already filed her own tax return, so there would be no reason for her to be using Turbotax, except in furtherance of the scheme to secure other people's tax refunds. The detective traced the individuals whose names were on the debit cards found in Respondent's purse, and he discovered that they all were residents of a nearby retirement community. He interviewed the residents, who reported to the detective that they did not know Respondent and that they had not authorized Respondent or "Tiffany" to file tax returns on their behalf. Respondent admitted to the detective that she knew what she was doing was wrong and illegal. At the hearing, Respondent provided only vague, general, and somewhat contradictory testimony regarding the circumstances giving rise to the criminal charge to which she pled no contest. On the one hand, she claimed that although she was charged, she "didn't have nothing to do with what went on[.]" She later admitted that she was wrong, but took the position that she already had been punished for her wrongdoing and deserved a second chance. The only specific fact Respondent disputed regarding her role in the debit card scheme was whether she was the one who actually filed the tax returns. Respondent did not deny that she took part in the scheme to defraud vulnerable people out of their tax refunds for her own financial gain. Respondent did not deny that she used her own mother's personal information for Respondent's financial gain. Overall, Respondent's testimony lacked credibility and did not effectively refute the detective's more credible testimony. Respondent's court appearance at which her plea was made was on February 21, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. That day was a work day for Respondent, and the hours she was supposed to work were 7:00 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and 10:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Respondent acknowledged that she left the cafeteria sometime between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. for her court appearance and did not return to work that day. However, Respondent filled out her semi-monthly payroll sheet form to reflect that she was present and working from 7:00 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. and from 10:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., on February 21, 2013. Respondent signed the payroll sheet that she filled out to falsely reflect that she was working and should be paid for time that she was not actually at work. Petitioner's food services department informed its employees that it considers the accurate completion of time records on the payroll sheet to be very important. A June 2012 written policy was circulated to food service employees to emphasize that each employee must take care to ensure that the time records are accurate, including "[a]ctual start and [a]ctual end times," verified by the employee's signature. As emphasis, a text box on the written policy contained the message that "[p]utting false or incorrect information on your timesheet is Time Card Fraud and is grounds for disciplinary action up to and including recommendation for termination." Respondent acknowledged that she is aware that Petitioner expects employee time records to be accurate and truthful, and that falsification of a time sheet is considered time card fraud. Respondent also acknowledged that it was her signature on the payroll sheet that was filled out inaccurately for February 21, 2013. Respondent testified that she did "not remember" putting down the wrong hours or signing the payroll sheet, but the fact remains that the record was submitted with her signature verifying that she worked hours that she admittedly did not work on February 21, 2013. The result of Respondent's signed submission was that she was paid for hours that she knows she did not work. The credible evidence established that Respondent filled out her time records on the payroll sheet form to reflect that she worked a full day on February 21, 2013, which she knew was not true. Respondent signed the payroll sheet form, vouching for the false information that she knew would be used to pay her for hours she did not work. Respondent did not dispute Petitioner's authority to terminate her for just cause, nor did Respondent dispute most of the facts alleged as the basis for establishing just cause. Instead, Respondent's position was that despite her wrongdoing, she should be given a second chance, having worked for Petitioner for 15 years. Essentially, then, Respondent's defense was an argument for mitigation of the penalty to be imposed. In furtherance of her position, Respondent presented testimony from two character witnesses, but the witnesses knew little to nothing about the nature of the criminal charge to which Respondent pled no contest. Neither witness offered any information about Respondent for the time period at issue in this case. One witness was a neighborhood acquaintance who has only known Respondent for three months. The other witness was a former cafeteria supervisor who was terminated by Petitioner five years ago. The former supervisor testified that during the time she and Respondent worked together, Respondent was a hard worker who had her difficult moments, but who complied with and followed instructions "most of the time." When Respondent asked her former supervisor whether she believed that everyone deserves a second chance, the witness responded as follows: "I believe everyone should have a second chance. Some people need more than two chances, and [Respondent] might be that person. There's been times that maybe she hadn't followed the rules entirely, but who does?" Petitioner advocated against leniency based on the unrefuted evidence that a cafeteria worker, such as Respondent, has access to personal and financial information about students and their families. Accounts are established for students to draw on for their cafeteria purchases. Student account funds are deposited, withdrawn, and accounted for by food service workers. Family names, phone numbers, and addresses are included with the student account records. In addition, many account records reflect personal financial information of the student's family, including information on applications submitted to qualify students for free or reduced-cost lunches and information from governmental programs that provide aid to students, such as the state-federal program to provide temporary assistance for needy families (TANF).2/ It is reasonable for Petitioner to be concerned with the risk that would be presented by allowing Respondent to continue in her position where she has access to individual financial information of students and their families. It is not unreasonable for Petitioner to be unwilling to take that risk, given Respondent's very recent involvement in a scheme to defraud vulnerable people, including her own mother, for Respondent's financial gain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent, Nikki M. Brydson. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 5th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Revenue (the "Department") may revoke the Certificate of Registration issued to Petitioner for failure to post a $10,000 cash deposit, surety bond, or irrevocable letter of credit.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency of the state of Florida charged with the duty to enforce the collection of taxes imposed pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes, to issue warrants for the collection of taxes, interest, and penalties and, where necessary, to require a cash deposit, bond, or other security, as a condition to a person obtaining or retaining a dealer‘s certificate of registration under chapter 212. Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its principal and mailing address at 5800 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. Petitioner is a "dealer" as defined in section 212.06(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner holds Dealer's Certificate of Registration No. 26-8015523525-2. As a dealer, Petitioner was required to collect sales and use taxes from customers and to submit monthly tax returns and collected taxes to the Department. Sales and use taxes for any given month are due on the first day of the succeeding month, and must be paid to the Department on or before the 20th day of that succeeding month. Petitioner failed to file the required sales and use tax returns for January through March 2011. In a delinquent tax warrant dated May 18, 2011, the Department assessed Petitioner estimated tax of $3,000 for the three months in question, along with $32.79 in interest, $300.00 in penalties, and fees in the amount of $20.00, for a total of $3,352.79. The Department estimated the tax due for the months of January through March 2011 based on historical data, i.e., Petitioner's previous sales and use tax returns. The Department issued the Notice on May 18, 2011. The Notice was served on Petitioner on May 20, 2011. The Notice required Petitioner to post a $10,000 cash deposit, surety bond, or irrevocable letter of credit as a condition to retaining its Certificate of Registration. The Notice further advised Petitioner of an informal conference, commonly referenced as a "bond hearing," to be conducted on June 21, 2011, for the purpose of affording the Petitioner an opportunity to resolve the delinquent tax issue. The Notice also stated as follows, in relevant part: This Notice of Intent to Revoke Registration will become final on the date of the informal conference if the required security has not been posted, or an agreement is not reached at the informal conference, or you fail to attend the informal conference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order that declines to revoke Dealer's Certificate of Registration No. 26-8015523525-2 held by Jacksonville Entertainment Company, LLC, until such time as the Department fully complies with the requirements of subsection 212.18(3)(d), Florida Statutes by issuing an Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 19th day of March, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Marshall Stranburg, Esquire Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Revenue Litigation Bureau Tallahassee, Florida 32399 carrol.cherry@myfloridalegal.com Bechara Richa Jacksonville Entertainment Company, LLC 8474 Papelon Way Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Nancy Terrel, Acting General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a waiver of the bond requirement set forth Section 559.927, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Ladatco is a "seller of travel" as that term is defined in Section 559.927(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Ladatco deals exclusively in wholesale travel packages. Ladatco primarily packages and sells tours of Central and South America to retail travel agents. Until the last few years, the retail travel agents handled virtually all of the ticketing involved in the packages. Changes in the industry have resulted in Ladatco becoming more involved in the ticketing aspect as part of the services it provides in assembling the packages. However, Ladatco has very little direct contact with consumers. Ladatco originally began operations in 1967 as a subsidiary of another company. Ladatco has been conducting business in its current corporate form since 1976. Michelle Shelburne has been working for the company since 1969. She has been the president of Ladatco for at least the last ten years and she owns fifty percent (50 percent) of the outstanding stock. Annie Burke and Rosa Perez are the other officers of the company and they each own approximately twenty two and half percent (22 1/2 percent) of the stock. Both Burke and Perez have worked for Ladatco since approximately 1970. The remaining five percent of the outstanding stock is owned by an attorney who has represented Ladatco since 1967. Ladatco has seven other full time employees and operates out of an office building that is owned jointly by Shelburne, Perez and Burke. Under Section 559.927(10)(b), Florida Statutes, a seller of travel is obligated to post a performance bond or otherwise provide security to the Department to cover potential future claims made by travelers. The security required by this statute is for the benefit of consumers and may be waived by the Department in certain circumstances. On or about May 27, 1994, Ladatco submitted an Application for Security Waiver (the "Application") pursuant to Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes. In lieu of audited financial statements, Ladatco submitted a copy of its 1993 income tax return with the Application. Line 30 of that income tax return reflects a net loss for tax purposes of $100,722. In reviewing an application for a bond waiver, the Department looks at the taxable income on the income tax return. It is the Department's position that if a company shows a loss for tax purposes, it is lacking in financial responsibility and is ineligible for a bond waiver. Based on this policy, the Department denied Ladatco's Application by letter dated August 2, 1994. The certified public accountant who has handled all outside accounting services for Ladatco since 1977 testified at the hearing in this matter. He submitted a history of operations for the company from 1985 through 1993. The accountant explained that, in 1986, Ladatco acquired a very expensive computer system with customized software. The cost of this system was depreciated over a five year period. In addition, until 1991, the company operated out of a building that it owned. The building was sold to the individual principals of the company in 1991. During the years the company owned the building, a significant amount of depreciation was generated for tax purposes. The large depreciation expenses for the years 1986 through 1991 generated losses for tax purposes which have been carried over for future years. Thus, while the company's operations for 1993 generated a profit of $65,000, the loss carry over resulted in a net loss for income tax purposes. The current year forecast for the company, based upon existing bookings, projects a net income in excess of $64,000 for the year ending December 31, 1994. In sum, an isolated look at the taxable income loss reflected on the 1993 income tax return does not provide an accurate picture of the financial responsibility of this company. This closely owned company has been in business for approximately twenty eight (28) years. The three principals in the company have all been with the firm for more than twenty four (24) years. The company has demonstrated a great deal of stability and, while profitability has fluctuated from year to year, the company has continually met its obligations for more than a quarter century. There is every indication that it will continue to do so in the future. Ladatco has maintained a bond with the Airline Reporting Corporation ("ARC") for approximately two and a half years. The amount of the bond varies from year to year, but is generally in the vicinity of $35,000. The statute provides that a company which has successfully maintained a bond with the ARC for three years is entitled to a security waiver. While the ARC bond only protects the airlines and not the travelers, Ladatco will qualify for a waiver under this provision in approximately May of 1995. There is no indication of any unresolved complaints against Ladatco nor is there any evidence of civil, criminal or administrative action against the company.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order granting Ladatco's application for security waiver pursuant to Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only the Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my ruling on those proposals. Adopted in pertinent part Finding of Fact 6 and also addressing the Preliminary Statement and in the Conclusions of Law. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Facts 7 and 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Michelle D. Shelburne, President Ladatco, Inc. d/b/a Ladatco Tours 2220 Coral Way Miami, Florida 33145 Jay S. Levenstein, Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Certificate of Registration may lawfully be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.21. The Department has the responsibility of administering the revenue laws of the state, including the laws relating to the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use tax, pursuant to Chapter 212. Spin and Marty is a Florida corporation doing business as Crabbit's Pub whose principal address is 10513 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida. Spin and Marty is a "dealer" as that term is defined in Chapter 212. It holds a certificate of registration issued by the Department that is numbered 37-8012056472-7. Spin and Marty initially registered with the Department on January 30, 1992. The sales and use tax collected by a registrant, such as Spin and Marty, become the property of the state at the moment they are collected. A registrant is an agent of the state when collecting the sales and use tax. Spin and Marty was required to remit the sales and use tax collected to the state on or before the 20th of each month. From November 1999 until December 2003, Spin and Marty filed no returns and paid no sales and use taxes to the Department. Also, Spin and Marty, in November 2005, did not file a return or pay sales and use taxes. In a letter dated November 20, 2001, Spin and Marty was notified that the Department was going to audit its records. The Department received no response. In a letter dated April 3, 2002, Spin and Marty was again asked to contact the Department's auditor so a mutually agreed date could be set to conduct the audit. The Department received no response to this letter. The Department thereafter conducted an audit. The result of the audit was a notice of proposed assessment which stated that Spin and Marty owed $146,044.74 in back taxes, penalties, and interest through September 4, 2002. Neither Spin and Marty, nor its principal, Mr. McNiff, contested the audit findings. A letter from the Department addressed to "Dear Taxpayer," dated August 5, 2002, was received by Spin and Marty. This letter stated that the Department wished to arrange a meeting in its office for the purpose of reviewing the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes dated June 18, 2002. Spin and Marty did not avail itself of this opportunity. Six tax warrants were filed with the Clerk of Court in Hernando County against Spin and Marty. These warrants indicate that as of the day of the hearing Spin and Marty owed $175,299.93 to the Department. This amount includes the actual tax due, or in the case of warrant 1000000029678, the estimated tax due, penalties, interest, and filing fees. Interest continues to accrue. Pursuant to notice from the Department, on July 31, 2006, Theodore Faugno, who works for Mr. McNiff's CPA, and Mr. McNiff met with Debra B. Smith, a Revenue Specialist III with the Department. Neither Mr. McNiff nor Mr. Faugno contacted Ms. Smith following the meeting. This resulted in the Administrative Complaint seeking to revoke Respondent's Certificate of Registration. Mr. McNiff related that during the period he failed to submit returns and remit the taxes then due, he experienced adverse health issues and the unplanned birth of a baby. However, he was able to operate Spin and Marty and make a profit. It is indubitably concluded that he could have also reported and remitted the tax due, had he been so inclined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue revoke Certificate of Registration No. 37-8012056472-7, held by Spin and Marty, Inc., d/b/a Crabbit's Pub. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren J. Bird, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jarrell L. Murchison, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 James McNiff Spin and Marty, Inc., d/b/a Crabbit's Pub 10050 Sleepy Willow Court Spring Hill, Florida 34608 James McNiff Crabbit's Pub 10513 Spring Hill Drive Spring Hill, Florida 34608-5047 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue (Department or Petitioner) may revoke the certificate of registration issued to Respondent for failure to comply with the terms of a compliance agreement.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing Florida's revenue laws, including the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ Respondent is a Florida limited liability company doing business at 309 South Howard Avenue, Tampa, Florida, and is a “dealer” as defined at section 212.06(2). Respondent holds a certificate of registration issued by the Department (Certificate No. 39-8015401140-8) and is statutorily required to file tax returns and remit taxes to the Department. The Department is authorized to cancel a dealer's certificate of registration for failure to comply with state tax laws. Prior to such cancellation, the Department is required by statute to convene a conference with the dealer. The Department initiated the process of revoking Respondent’s certificate of registration by sending Respondent a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Notice of Conference) via regular mail and certified mail on May 24, 2013. The Department then hand-delivered a copy of the Notice of Conference to Respondent’s principal place of business on June 21, 2013. The Notice of Conference advised that the informal conference would be held on June 26, 2013. The Notice of Conference also informed Respondent that revocation was being considered because of Respondent’s failure to submit sales and use tax and reemployment tax. The notice further advised that at the informal conference Respondent would have the opportunity to make payment or present evidence to demonstrate why the Department should not revoke Respondent’s certificate of revocation. Verna Bartlett and Aubrey Grantham appeared on behalf of Respondent, at the informal conference. Christopher Scott, Respondent’s manager and registered agent, entered into a Compliance Agreement with the Department on July 10, 2013. The compliance agreement states that, due to Respondent’s failure to timely file returns and pay all taxes due, Respondent admits to a past due sales and use tax liability of $43,586.23, consisting of tax, penalty, interest and fees. The compliance agreement also states that Respondent admits to a past due reemployment tax liability of $19,215.75, consisting of tax, penalty, interest and fees. The compliance agreement required Respondent to make a down payment of $15,000 by July 10, 2013, to make, beginning on August 10, 2013, monthly payments in the amount of $4,000 for one year, and to make a final balloon payment on July 10, 2014. The compliance agreement also provides that: IN CONSIDERATION for the Department refraining from pursuing revocation proceedings at this time, the taxpayer agrees: To accurately complete all past due tax returns and reports and file them no later than 7/10/13. To remit all past due payments to the Department as stated in the attached payment agreement. To accurately complete and timely file all required tax returns and reports for the next 12 months, beginning with the first return/report due following the date of this agreement. To timely remit all taxes due for the next 12 months, following the date of this agreement.2/ On July 10, 2013, Respondent made the down payment of $15,000 as required by the compliance agreement. Per the compliance agreement, all payments were to be made in certified funds, money order or cash and received by the close of business on the due date at the Department’s Tampa Service Center. Per the compliance agreement, Respondent’s second monthly payment in the amount of $4,000 was due by the close of business on September 10, 2013. The Department, as part of the process associated with the execution and implementation of the compliance agreement, provided Respondent with “Stipulation Agreement Payment Coupons” (Stipulation Coupons) to facilitate the processing of Respondent’s monthly payments. Although the compliance agreement indicates that payments are to be received by the close of business on the 10th calendar day of each month, the Stipulation Coupon for September 2013 showed that payment should be received “on or before September 12, 2013,” at the “Tampa Service Center.” Both the compliance agreement and the Stipulation Coupon clearly indicate that payments are to be sent to the Tampa Service Center. Nevertheless, Respondent sent its payment, by check dated and mailed on September 12, 2013, to the Department’s Tallahassee office. Not only was the payment mailed to the incorrect address, but it was also untimely. Furthermore, because Respondent did not include a note on the memo portion of the check or enclose a Stipulation Coupon with the check, the Department applied the payment to a different account. As a consequence of Respondent’s failure to submit the September 2013 payment in a manner consistent with either the compliance agreement or the Stipulation Coupon, the Department wrote Respondent and informed the company that effective October 12, 2013, the compliance agreement was voided. The compliance agreement was never reinstated by the parties. Due to the compliance agreement having been voided, all monies owed for past due tax payments became due as of October 12, 2013. At some point after the filing of the Administrative Complaint, and prior to the final hearing, Petitioner satisfied all past due tax liabilities covered by the compliance agreement. The Administrative Complaint alleges that “Respondent failed to file a tax return for the months of December 2013 and January 2014” which resulted in “an estimated tax liability of $13,854.32.”3/ Additionally, the Department, in its Proposed Recommended Order, argues that for the period July 2013 through July 2014 Respondent failed to electronically file returns and submit payment of sales and use tax and reemployment tax. According to the Department, Respondent’s omissions violated the terms of the compliance agreement. Respondent annually reports more than $20,000 in sales and use tax. For the months July and August 2013 (September is not included because the tax return and related payment were not due until October 20, 2013, which is after the date of termination of the compliance agreement), the undisputed evidence is that Respondent did not electronically file its returns when due.4/ The evidence also established that Respondent did not seek, nor did the Department grant, a waiver authorizing Respondent to file its returns via non-electronic means. The evidence is inconclusive regarding whether Respondent has paid any amounts owed for these months. The compliance agreement required Respondent “[t]o accurately complete . . . all required tax returns and reports.” The compliance agreement does not define the word “accurately.” The root word “accurate” is generally accepted to mean “conforming exactly to truth or to a standard.” Accurate Definition, Merriam-Webster.com, http://merriam- webster.com/dictionary/accurate (last visited Oct. 31, 2014). There is nothing in the compliance agreement suggesting that the parties intended a different meaning for this term. Section 213.755(1) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 12-24.003 establish the standard by which Respondent was to conduct itself and these provisions provide that any taxpayer that has paid tax in the prior state fiscal year in an amount of $20,000 or more is required to file returns and remit payments by electronic means, unless first obtaining a waiver. By not filing its returns by electronic means, as required, Respondent did not “accurately complete” the returns for July and August 2013 because the returns were not filed in accordance with “the standard” established by section 213.755 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 12-24.003. Respondent’s failure in this regard was in violation of the then-in-effect compliance agreement. The Department has issued and recorded against Respondent delinquent tax warrants and notices of lien in the public records of Hillsborough County, Florida, to secure collection of delinquent sales and use tax and reemployment tax liability, plus penalties, filing fees and interest. On April 6, 2013, the Department recorded against Respondent a tax warrant in the amount of $10,323.40, and on May 15, 2013, another tax warrant in the amount of $32,912.04 was also recorded. The tax liability, and related penalties, fees and interest for these two tax warrants were covered by the compliance agreement and have since been satisfied.5/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order that declines to revoke Dealer’s Certificate of Registration No. 39-8015401140-8 held by PNC LLC, d/b/a Cheap. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 3rd day of November, 2014.
