The Issue The issue is whether petitioner's candidacy for the office of Tax Collector would conflict or interfere with his employment as an auditor for the Department of Revenue.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Robert M. Hendrick, a career service employee, is employed with respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), as a Tax Auditor IV in its Leesburg, Florida field office. He has been employed by DOR since September 1991. In his position, petitioner primarily audits tangible personal property assessments performed by the local Property Appraiser and, on occasion, he inspects the property which is the subject of the assessment. In March 1996, the Lake County Tax Collector publicly announced that he would not run for reelection. After learning of this decision, by letter dated March 19, 1996, petitioner requested authorization from his employer to run for that office. The letter was received by DOR's Executive Director on April 1, 1996. On April 10, 1996, the Executive Director issued a letter denying the request on the ground the candidacy would conflict with petitioner's job duties. More specifically, the letter stated in relevant part that: Under section 195.002, Florida Statutes, the Department of Revenue has supervision of the tax collection and all other aspects of the administration of such taxes. Your position with the Department may require you to review or audit the activities of the office you propose to seek. Also some of your duties in supervising other officials in the administration of property taxes may be affected by your proposed candidacy. Your job requires you to review appropriate tax returns, and other records to resolve complex issues related to taxing statutes administered by the Department of Revenue. It also requires you to identify and scrutinize transactions to ascertain whether taxpayers have escaped paying property taxes. In addition, it also requires you to review and audit procedures used by counties to identify and value tangible personal property and accomplish statutory compliance, to investigate taxpayer complaints, to conduct field review with county staff as appropriate, and to provide education and assistance to county taxing officials. Because of the Department's statutory supervision of the office of tax collector, there cannot be a certification that your candidacy would involve "no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes" with your state employment within the definitions in section 110.233(4), Florida Statutes. The letter went on to say that This letter is a specific instruction to you that you should not qualify or become a candidate for office while employed in your current position. If you wish to commence your campaign by performing the pre-filing requirements, the law requires that you first resign from the Department. Failure to do so shall result in disciplinary action to dismiss you from your position in accordance with the Department's disciplinary standards and procedures, and Rule 60K-4.010, F.A.C., on the grounds that you are in violation of the Department's Code of Conduct, Section 110.233, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60K- 13.002(3), F.A.C. After receiving the above decision, by letter dated April 15, 1996, petitioner requested that the Executive Director reconsider his decision. Thereafter, on April 24, 1996, petitioner filed a request for a formal hearing to contest the agency's decision. Both the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector play a role in the property tax program in the State of Florida. The Property Appraiser generally values or assesses property subject to taxation and applies the millage rate set by the taxing authority. After the tax roll is approved by DOR, it is certified to the Tax Collector who then collects the taxes and distributes them to the appropriate taxing authorities. It is noted that ad valorem taxes make up the lion's share of taxes at the local level while tangible personal property taxes are a very small source of revenues. DOR is charged with the duties of providing oversight to the property tax program and aid and assistance to the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector. In this regard, DOR views the two offices as an integral part of the property tax program rather than two separate entities. It characterizes the program as "a stream or process where (the) lines of delineation (between the two offices) are not as distinct as they might have been ten or fifteen years ago." Because of the highly sensitive nature of the tax program, it follows that a certain degree of trust and integrity must exist between DOR (and its employees) and the local offices. Petitioner does not interface with the office of Tax Collector in any respect, and his duties do not require that he audit any of that office's records. His only duties are to audit the tangible personal property assessments performed by the Property Appraiser. These facts were not controverted. Although he has never differed with a valuation of the Property Appraiser during his five year tenure at DOR, and no such disagreement has occurred in Lake County during the last twenty-five years, petitioner could conceivably disagree with an assessment while running for office during the next few months. If the matter could not be informally settled, the tax rolls would not be certified by DOR, and litigation against DOR could be initiated by the Property Appraiser. Under those unlikely circumstances, petitioner might be called as a witness in the case, although the general practice has always been for DOR to use personnel from the Tallahassee office in litigation matters. To the very minor extent that petitioner could affect the tax rolls by disagreeing with the Property Appraiser's valuations, this could also impact the amount of money collected by the Tax Collector. DOR cites these circumstances as potentially affecting in an adverse way the level of trust and integrity between DOR and the office of Tax Collector. However, under the facts and circumstances of this case, this potential conflict is so remote and miniscule as to be wholly immaterial. The evidence also shows that in his audit role, petitioner has the "opportunity . . . to look and have access to tax returns," some of which "are of TPP (tangible personal property) nature (and) have attached to them federal tax returns" which might be used by the Property Appraiser for establishing the value of tangible personal property. Whether petitioner has ever had access to, or reviewed such, returns is not of record. In any event, to the extent this set of circumstances would pose a potential conflict with the Property Appraiser, as to the Tax Collector, it would be no more significant than the purported conflict described in finding of fact 7. Finally, DOR suggests that if petitioner was unsuccessful in his bid for office, it would likely damage the "relationship of trust" that now exists between DOR and the Tax Collector. Again, this purported conflict is so speculative as to be deemed immaterial. The parties have stipulated that, as of the date of hearing, petitioner's only option for qualifying to run for office is to pay a $6,173.00 qualifying fee no later than noon, July 19, 1996. The opportunity for submitting an appropriate number of signatures in lieu of a filing fee expired on June 24, 1996. On the few, isolated occasions during the last twenty-five years when the Lake County Tax Collector has requested information from DOR personnel, he has spoken by telephone with DOR legal counsel in Tallahassee. Those matters of inquiry, primarily relating to ad valorem taxes, do not concern any area related to petitioner's job duties. He also pointed out that his office always cooperates with the office of the Property Appraiser, especially when "corrections" must be made due to errors by that office. Even so, he described the two offices as being separate and with entirely different duties. This testimony is accepted as being the most persuasive on this issue. At least four persons have already announced that they would run for Tax Collector for Lake County. The parties have stipulated that one of those persons is a regional administrator for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles who was not required to resign his position in order to run for office. According to the incumbent Tax Collector, that individual supervises other state employees who occasionally audit certain aspects of his office pertaining to automobile license plates and decals. Because of the time constraints in this case, and although not legally obligated to do so, respondent has voluntarily agreed to allow petitioner to take annual leave (or presumably leave without pay) commencing on the date he qualifies for local public office, or July 19, 1996, and to remain on leave until a final order is issued by the agency. At that time, if an adverse decision is rendered, petitioner must choose between resigning or withdrawing as a candidate. These terms are embodied in a letter from DOR's counsel to petitioner dated July 3, 1996. If petitioner is allowed to run for office without resigning, he has represented that he will campaign while on leave or after regular business hours. He has also represented, without contradiction, that his campaign activities will not interfere with his regular duties. If elected, he intends to resign his position with DOR.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order granting petitioner's request that it certify to the Department of Management Services that his candidacy for the office of Lake County Tax Collector would involve no interest which conflicts, or activity which interferes, with his state employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, 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 10th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent: Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. 3-5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 7-9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 10-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 12. Rejected as being irrelevant since petitioner was not an employee of DOR in 1990. 13-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 18. Rejected as being unnecessary. 19-20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 22-23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, not supported by the evidence, unnecessary, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: L. H. Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Mr. Robert M. Hendrick 5022 County Road 48 Okahumpka, Florida 34762 Peter S. Fleitman, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 1986, American Aviation Resources, Inc., sold an airplane to Munur Yurtsever, a resident of Brazil. This aircraft was a Hansa jet model HFB-320 with U.S. registration number N71DL (the subject aircraft). On January 28, 1986, Mr. Yurtsever transferred title of the subject aircraft to Petitioner, Selcuk Yetimoglu. At the time of the transfer, the subject aircraft was in the State of Florida undergoing repairs. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Yetimoglu resided at 20530 Jacaranda Road, Cutler Ridge, Miami, Florida, in a residence owned by Mr. Yurtsever. The aircraft bill of sale dated January 28, 1986, reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu was the purchaser of the subject aircraft and that Mr. Yurtsever was the seller. The bill of sale recited that the consideration paid was $20.00 and other good and valuable consideration. While the bill of sale reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu resided in Miami, Florida, the bill of sale does not state that the sale occurred in the State of Florida. On January 29, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu applied to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the registration of the subject aircraft in his name. On March 13, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote to the FAA regarding the registration and stated, in pertinent part, as follows: Mr. Munur Yurtsever sold the aircraft to me on January 28, 1986, five days after he bought the aircraft from American Aviation Resources, Inc. when he found out that the government of Brazil did not give him a (sic) permission to import the aircraft and that he could not register the aircraft in the United States because he was not a citizen of the United States. By letter dated May 15, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu provided the FAA proof that the subject aircraft had not been registered in Brazil. Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner of the subject aircraft between January 28, 1986, and March 13, 1987. On March 13, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu sold the subject aircraft back to Mr. Yurtsever. The bill of sale identifies the purchaser as being: Munur Yurtsever Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. Av. Mal. Camara 160-GR. Rio de Janeiro - RJ Brazil On April 8, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote the FAA and stated, in pertinent part: ... I request cancelation of U.S. registra- tion for the aircraft ... because I sold the aircraft back to Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. ... On January 11, 1988, Respondent issued to Petitioner a "Notice of Delinquent Tax Penalty and Interest Due and Assessed" (Notice of Assessment) based on the transaction involving Mr. Yetimoglu, Mr. Yurtsever, and the subject aircraft. The Notice of Assessment contained the following statement: "This Department has information that you purchased the following aircraft. However, there is no evidence of payment of Florida Sales and/or Use Tax". The Notice of Assessment reflected that Respondent had, pursuant to Section 212.12(5)(b), Florida Statutes, estimated the value of the aircraft as being $320,000 and assessed the following taxes, interest, and penalties: Florida State Sales/Use Tax 5% $16,000.00 (Estimated) Per 212.06(8), F.S. Penalty 5% per month; Maximum 25% of 4,000.00 (25%) Tax Due Per Section 212.12(2), F.S. Additional Penalty 11,840.00 (50%) Per 212.12(2)(a), F.S. Interest = 1% per month from date of 3,680.00 (23%) Purchase To Date of Payment Per Section 212.12(3), F.S. Less Tax Paid ----------------- TOTAL DUE WITH THIS NOTICE $35,520.00 Respondent requested that Mr. Yetimoglu provide it information and documentation as to the value of the aircraft. Mr. Yetimoglu contends that he paid Mr. Yurtsever nothing for the aircraft, that the title was transferred to him and registered in the FAA in his name so that the aircraft could be test flown after it was repaired, and that Mr. Yurtsever had paid $100,000 for the aircraft. There was no evidence as to the sales price that Mr. Yetimoglu paid for the aircraft other than Mr. Yetimoglu's testimony. Respondent estimated that the reasonable value of the subject aircraft on January 28, 1986, was $320,000. This estimate was based on an appraisal prepared for Respondent and assumed that the aircraft was in a scrapped or junked condition. Respondent generally uses a standard reference work on the value of aircraft to assist it in estimating the value of the subject aircraft. Because of its age and model, the subject aircraft is no longer listed in this standard reference. In support of his contention that Mr. Yurtsever paid $100,000 for the aircraft, Mr. Yetimoglu provided Respondent with a copy of a wire transfer of funds from Mr. Yurtsever to American Aviation Resources, Inc. in the amount of $100,000. However, there was no documentation provided that established that the $100,000 constituted the entire purchase price paid by Mr. Yurtsever. The dispute between the parties as to the value of the aircraft is resolved by finding, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that the reasonable value of the aircraft at the times pertinent to this proceeding was $320,000.00. In December 1986, while Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner, the subject aircraft engaged in international flight between the Turks and Caicos Islands and the State of Florida. Respondent's Notice of Redetermination, dated February 26, 1990, upheld the Notice of Assessment on the basis that the underlying transaction was subject to use tax pursuant to Section 212.06(8), Florida Statutes. The issue to be resolved was framed by the Notice of Redetermination as being: "The only issue involved pertains to a use tax assessment upon an aircraft brought into this country". This determination was based, in part, upon a letter to Respondent from an attorney who was representing Mr. Yetimoglu at the time the letter was written. 1/ The letter implied that the aircraft was brought into Florida after the title was transferred to Mr. Yetimoglu, and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The transferor of the aircraft, Munur Yurtsever, is a nonresident alien. His inten- tion is to deliver the plane to a purchaser outside the country. Mr. Yurtsever advises that the F.A.A. will not allow the plane to be flown in this country unless it is owned by a U.S. resident. As it was imperative to fly the plane here in order to prepare it for its flight outside the country, Mr. Yurtsever transferred the plane to his partner, Selcuk Yetimoglu, who is a resident of the United States. ... At the formal hearing, Mr. Yetimoglu established that the aircraft was in Florida undergoing repairs at the time the title was transferred to him. Prior to and at the formal hearing, Respondent asserted the position that use taxes, interest, and penalties were due for this transaction. In its post- hearing submittal, Respondent, for the first time in this proceeding, contends that sales taxes, interest and penalties are due for this transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which withdraws the subject assessment. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of March, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Christopher B. Scott, as the managing member of PNC, LLC (PNC), is personally liable for a penalty equal to twice the total amount of the sales and use tax owed by PNC to the State of Florida.1/
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes. PNC is a now-dissolved Florida limited liability company that did business under the name "CHEAP" at 309 South Howard Avenue, Tampa, Florida. PNC was registered as a business and filed its Articles of Organization with the Secretary of State on June 16, 2010. Until the company was dissolved by the Secretary of State in 2018 for failure to pay the 2017 annual filing fees, Mr. Scott served as its managing member and had administrative control over the collection and payment of taxes. Verna Bartlett was PNC's controller. PNC was registered with the Department as a dealer pursuant to section 212.18, Florida Statutes, and was issued Sales and Use Tax Certificate of Registration 39-8015401140-8. A certificate of registration requires the taxpayer to file sales and use tax returns and pay to the Department all taxes owed as they are received. After making numerous attempts to collect delinquent sales tax owed by PNC for tax reporting periods in 2013 and 2014, the Department filed this action seeking to impose a personal penalty assessment against Mr. Scott, the managing member of the company. Section 213.29, Florida Statutes, provides that any person who has administrative control over the collection and payment of taxes and who willfully fails to pay the tax or evades the payment of the tax shall be liable to a penalty equal to twice the amount of tax not paid. The penalty is based only on the taxes owed, and not the interest and fees that have accrued. The statute provides that if the business liability is fully paid, the personal liability assessment will be considered satisfied. On January 18, 2018, the Department issued a NAPL against Mr. Scott after PNC failed to pay the sales and use taxes owed the State for the reporting periods from February 2013 through October 2014. The outstanding taxes, exclusive of interest or penalties, total $79,325.75. The NAPL imposes a total penalty of $158,647.50, or twice the amount of sales tax owed by PNC. No payments have been made on the account since the issuance of the NAPL, and, PNC, now closed, currently has a total liability in excess of $200,000.00. During the relevant time period, Mr. Scott was personally responsible for collecting PNC's sales tax and remitting it to the Department; he had the authority to sign checks on behalf of PNC; he made financial decisions as to which creditors should be paid; he made the decision to use the sales tax collected for the business and for stipulation payments; and he made the decision not to remit the sales tax that was collected. This was confirmed by PNC's controller, Ms. Bartlett, who responded to the Department's Requests for Admissions. Mr. Scott also confirmed to a Department tax specialist that the admissions provided by Ms. Bartlett were accurate. Mr. Scott either never remitted payment or did not remit payment timely on behalf of PNC for the following reporting periods: February, April, and December 2013, and January through October 2014. Tax warrants were issued and judgment liens were recorded for the following reporting periods: February, April, and December 2013, and January, February, and April through October 2014. Resp. Ex. 5 and 6. All warrants and liens relate to reporting periods that fall within the personal liability assessment period. A Notice of Jeopardy Finding and Notice of Final Assessment (Notice of Jeopardy) dated June 18, 2014, was issued to PNC pertaining to the April 2014 reporting period. Resp. Ex. This notice was issued after Mr. Scott ceased making regular tax payments, the estimated deficiency was substantial, and the Department determined that collection of the tax would be jeopardized by further delay. A Notice of Jeopardy and Notice of Final Assessment dated August 7, 2014, also was issued to PNC pertaining to the April, May, and June 2014 reporting periods. Resp. Ex. 12. Because PNC reported more than $20,000.00 in sales tax each year, unless a waiver was obtained, Mr. Scott was required to file and pay PNC's sales tax electronically for all reporting periods within the personal liability period. See § 213.755(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 12-24.003. Despite having obtained no waiver, Mr. Scott never filed returns or paid PNC's sales tax electronically. And even though he never remitted a payment electronically, Mr. Scott indicated on at least six sales tax returns during the relevant time period that sales tax for the reporting period was remitted electronically. The only conclusion to draw from this action is that Mr. Scott filed or directed the filing of these returns knowing them to be false. The record shows that, dating back to 2011, Mr. Scott has a long-standing history of failing to abide by the tax laws of the state as it relates to PNC. For example, on September 15, 2011, Mr. Scott was referred for criminal investigation by the state attorney for his failure to pay taxes. Also, numerous returns were filed without a payment. This is prima facie evidence of conversion of the money due. § 212.14(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent's Exhibit 1 summarizes numerous contacts by the Department's Tampa District Office with Mr. Scott regarding collection notices, telephone calls, emails, assessment letters, warrant letters, and the like in an effort to secure compliance with tax laws. It is fair to find that Mr. Scott willfully attempted to evade or avoid paying sales and reemployment taxes during the relevant period. To prevent its Sales and Use Tax Certificate of Registration from being revoked, PNC entered into a compliance agreement on July 10, 2013, to pay past due sales tax and reemployment tax totaling $65,789.25. The agreement required PNC to: (a) accurately complete all past due tax returns and reports no later than July 10, 2013; (b) remit all past due payments in accordance with the attached schedule, which required 11 monthly payments of $4,000.00 beginning on August 10, 2013, and a final balloon payment on July 10, 2014; (c) accurately complete and file all required tax returns and reports for the next 12 months; and (d) timely remit all taxes due for the next 12 months. A $15,000.00 down payment also was required to be paid on or before July 10, 2013. An addendum to the agreement (added by Mr. Scott) provided that "[a]ll payments, including the $15,000.00 down payment, shall first be applied to Sales and Use Tax." Although the down payment was made timely, the agreement was breached the first month (August) because Mr. Scott did not make the payment electronically. However, the agreement was not voided by the Department until October 12, 2013. Therefore, any payments made on or after October 12, 2013, were not considered compliance payments and are not subject to the addendum in the agreement. A somewhat confusing aspect of this dispute concerns Mr. Scott's contention, by way of cross-examination, that contrary to the addendum, the Department incorrectly applied his $15,000.00 down payment and subsequent compliance payments to the reemployment tax account, rather than the sales tax account, and that his sales tax liability should be reduced by that amount. As noted above, the addendum governs only the payments that predate October 12, 2013, which are the down payment ($15,000.00) and the August and September payments -- $4,000.00 each month. This issue was not raised by Mr. Scott until the Department issued a NAPL on April 13, 2017. The NAPL issued on April 13, 2017, indicated that the outstanding tax owed by PNC through October 31, 2014, was $90,808.17, and the personal assessment was twice that amount. In response to Mr. Scott's request, the Department acknowledged that it incorrectly applied the down payment to the reemployment account. Also, it took a second look at the two payments made in August and September, which predate the voiding of the agreement. The August installment payment consisted of two separate checks: $3,390.00 for sales tax and $610.00 for reemployment tax, and these amounts were applied in that manner. The September payment, $4,000.00, submitted in one check, was applied in the same manner as the August payment, with $610.00 going to the reemployment tax and the remainder to sales tax. Therefore, only $1,220.00 was incorrectly applied to the reemployment tax during those two months. On July 3, 2017, the Department reapplied a total of $16,551.00 from the reemployment tax account to the sales tax account for the relevant reporting periods. Mr. Scott contends the reapplication of the $16,551.00 to sales tax should reduce the amount of sales tax due by that amount. However, section 213.75(2) dictates that if a lien or warrant has been filed against the taxpayer, as is true here, the payment shall be applied in a priority order spelled out in the statute. Thus, the Department applied that amount in the following order: against the costs to record the liens against PNC; against the administration collection processing fee, if any; against any accrued interest; against any accrued penalty; and against any tax due. Under this priority order, the penalty/interest/fees categories totaled $5,066.58, while the tax liability category totaled $11,484.42. A detailed breakdown of this allocation is found in Respondent's Exhibit 29. Therefore, the total tax liability on the 2017 NAPL ($90,808.17) is reduced by $11,484.42, resulting in a total tax liability of $79,323.75, as shown on the updated 2018 NAPL. In the same vein, in his PRO, Mr. Scott argues that he was not given credit for payments of $9,110.24, $2,688.53, $178.28, and $1,321.80, which reduce his sales tax liability to $66,024.90 and the personal assessment to $132,049.80. See Pet'r Ex. 10. However, all of these payments (some of which are bank levies) were made after the compliance agreement was voided and do not apply to the reporting periods in this case. By way of cross-examination, Mr. Scott also contends that he was never given an accounting of what PNC owes despite "multiple requests" for the same. The record shows otherwise. On April 13, 2017, the 2017 NAPL was mailed to Mr. Scott, along with a ZT09, a computer-generated form which lists, in detail, a taxpayer's outstanding taxes owed by reporting period. A second copy of a ZT09 was faxed to him the following day. In his May 3, 2017, letter protesting the 2017 NAPL, Mr. Scott alleges that payments were not applied properly. In response, the Department sent a fax to Mr. Scott on May 10, 2017, listing checks that were not honored by the bank and requesting information concerning which payments PNC contends were not applied properly. In his response on May 12, 2017, Mr. Scott did not provide the requested information. On January 17, 2018, the 2018 NAPL was mailed to Mr. Scott, along with a ZT09. Finally, on April 12, 2018, per Ms. Bartlett's request, the Department mailed a ZT09 with the outstanding amounts due. Finally, in its PRO, the Department points out that after the hearing ended, it discovered that it made an error, in Mr. Scott's favor, in calculating his sales tax liability for the relevant reporting periods. Had it correctly calculated the amount of payments made by PNC, the sales tax liability for the relevant period would be increased from $79,323.75 to $84,444.35, which in turn would increase the personal assessment. However, the Department consents to the lower tax and assessed penalty amount, as reflected on the 2018 NAPL.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order determining that Petitioner, Christopher B. Scott, is liable to the Department for a penalty of $158,647.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 April, 2019.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner is liable for the sales and use tax, penalties, and interest assessed by the Department of Revenue and if so, what amount?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rowe's Supermarkets, LLC ("Petitioner" or "Rowe's"), is a Florida limited liability company. Robert Rowe was the president and primary shareholder in Rowe's. Respondent, Department of Revenue ("DOR" or "Respondent"), is an agency of the State of Florida authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. §§ 20.21 and 213.51, Fla. Stat. (2011) During the audit giving rise to this proceeding, Rowe's had its principal address at 5435 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Currently, Rowe's is located at 1431 Riverplace Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Rowe's organized in Florida on May 4, 2005. Rowe's was a sales and use tax dealer registered with the Department to conduct business in this state. It was in business approximately four years. Rowe's acquired several former Albertson's grocery retail stores, including the adjacent liquor stores, in Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Orange Park, Florida. During the audit period, Rowe's sold five stores with the adjacent liquor stores. Soon after beginning operation, Rowe's experienced significant financial difficulties which ultimately led to its demise. Its secured lender forced Rowe's to liquidate assets whenever possible, and all proceeds from the sale of the stores were paid directly into a locked account to Rowe's lender, Textron Financial. On October 29, 2008, the Department issued to Rowe's a Notification to Audit Books and Records, Form DR-840, bearing audit number 200048409, for sales and use tax, for the audit period beginning October 1, 2005, and ending September 30, 2008. On August 14, 2009, the Department issued to Rowe's a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, form DR-1215, for sales and use taxes, penalties and interest totaling $321,191.45, with additional interest accruing at $53.71 per day. On August 20, 2009, Rowe's canceled its sales and use tax Certificate of Registration. In a letter dated September 11, 2009, Rowe's requested an audit conference. The requested audit conference was held November 19, 2009. On January 8, 2010, the Department issued the taxpayer a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, form DR-1215, Revision #1, for sales and use tax, penalty and interest totaling $180,435.61, with additional interest accruing at $25.32 per day. On March 10, 2010, the Department issued a NOPA, which indicated Rowe's owed $137,225.27 in sales and use tax; $44,755.99 in interest through March 10, 2010; and $59.70 in penalties, with additional interest accruing at $26.32 per day. Prior to issuance of the NOPA, the Department compromised $34,246.663 in penalties, based upon reasonable cause. By letter dated May 6, 2010, Rowe's filed a protest to dispute the proposed assessment. The letter stated: I am submitting this informal protest on behalf of Rowe's Supermarkets, LLC (RS) as its past President. RS is no longer in business and has not assets. Before this audit began RS was unable to pay its bills. Also, its line of credit, which was secured by all of RS's assets, was in default and had been called by the lender. RS was unable to refinance the loan because of its poor financial condition. As a result, it sold all of its assets to a new company which was able to obtain financing and used the proceeds of that sale to repay its secured loan. RS not only has no assets but also is subject to an unsatisfied judgment lien against it in the amount of $324,936.33, which has been accruing interest at 8% per year from August 25, 2009, the date the judgment was entered by the Circuit Court here in Jacksonville. Even if Supermarkets was still in business and could pay its bills, we don't think it should be assessed with these taxes on the basis of the audit that was conducted. The auditor's lack of communication skills made it difficult for us to understand what information she needed. To the extent we understood her requests, we made every effort to provide her with the relevant information. But because most of the stores RS operated had already been closed, the only repository for obtaining accurate information was RS's general ledger, which she declined to review. She never explained why she made the proposed adjustments. We still don't know. We did our best when RS was operating to properly collect all sales taxes, we reflected all of the sale tax collections in the general ledger and we timely turned over all of the those taxes to the department of revenue, as is clear in the general ledger. We request that the proposed assessment be dropped. The Department issued a Notice of Decision on October 14, 2010, which sustained the assessment in full. In issuing its Notice of Decision, the Department did not review any issues related to the assessment other than doubt as to collectability. With respect to this issue, the Department stated, "[b]ased on our evaluation of all the factors of this case, including the financial information, we have concluded that it is not in the best interest of the State to accept your offer." Petitioner's challenge to the assessment presents five issues: 1) whether it was entitled to an exemption in section 212.12(14) for those additional taxes assessed for "rounding" up to the whole cent as opposed to using the bracket system in section 212.12(9); 2) whether the Department's assessment of additional taxes for expenses was erroneous where it was based on a sampling plan not presented to or agreed to by the taxpayer; 3) whether the additional tax on liquor sales was based on an incorrect application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A- 1.057(3)(a); 4) whether the Department violated the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights; and whether the Department was correct in determining that compromise of the assessment based on collectability was not in the best interest of the state. Each issue is treated separately below. The Exemption pursuant to section 212.12(14) Section 212.12(9) and (10), Florida Statutes, requires that sales taxes be paid on a "bracket system," and prescribes the amount of tax due for each portion of a dollar. Subsection (9) provides the tax brackets for those counties, such as St. Johns, which do not have a discretionary sales surtax and for which the tax rate is 6 percent. Subsection (10) provides the brackets for those counties, such as Duval and Clay, where a discretionary sales surtax of one percent has been adopted, making the sales-tax rate 7 percent. Section 212.12(14) provides a "safe harbor" from additional assessment of taxes for those dealers who fail to apply the tax brackets required by section 212.12. The taxpayer is not assessed additional taxes, penalty, and interest based on the failure to apply the bracket system if it meets three requirements: that it acted in a good faith belief that rounding was the proper method of determining the amount of tax due; if it timely reported and remitted all taxes collected on each taxable transaction; and if the taxpayer agrees in writing to future compliance with the law and rules concerning brackets applicable to the dealer's transactions. It is undisputed that Rowe's was not using the bracket system to calculate and collect sales taxes. The point-of-sale cash register system Rowe's purchased when opening its business was represented to Petitioner as compliant with Florida requirements when in fact it was not. The Department's auditor, Delaine Arrington, determined that assessment of additional taxes was appropriate because she believed that Rowe's had not timely reported and remitted all taxes collected on each taxable transaction, and that Rowe's had not agreed in writing to future compliance with respect to the bracketing system. The sales tax records for Rowe's were based upon the meshing of three different computer systems. First, there was a point-of-sale system at each cash register which collected the data, such as sales amounts, taxable sales, and sales tax collected, for each individual transaction. A software system called BR Data would then "pull" the sales data from the individual cash registers to create the cumulative sales register reports for each store. The cumulative data from BR Data was then automatically imported into Petitioner's accounting software, MAS 90, to populate the figures in Rowe's general ledger. Taxes collected were recorded in the general ledger under the credit column. The data in this column was transmitted from BR Data. It could not be adjusted manually, although other columns in the general ledger could be. There were sometimes problems with the transmission of information from BR Data, which generally occurred where there was a power surge or a thunderstorm that would affect the communication of information. As a result of these communication problems, there were times that the sales figure transmitted would be double or triple the actual sales for that day. When such an error was discovered, Rowe's staff would contact BR Data and have the report rebuilt, and the general ledger entry would be corrected. Rowe's informed Ms. Arrington that there had been numerous problems with the exporting process and the resulting need to correct journal entries. Ms. Arrington acknowledged at hearing that she had been advised that due to these problems, the sales figures were sometimes doubled or tripled. Ms. Arrington reviewed the general sales ledger, the cumulative sales register reports, and the sales and use tax returns for the audit period. According to her review, there were three days in August 2006 where the amount of collected tax reflected in the cumulative sales register was higher than what was reflected in the general ledger. Based upon this review, she assessed $1,193.98 in additional sales taxes. For August 1, 2006, the general ledger indicated that $263.48 in sales tax was collected. The cumulative sales report reflected that $790.44 in sales tax was collected. This second number in the cumulative sales report is exactly three times the amount reflected in the general ledger. The difference between the cumulative sales report amount and the general ledger amount is $526.96. For August 2, 2006, the general ledger indicated that $277.04 was collected. The cumulative sales report reflected that $554.08 in sales tax was collected, an amount exactly twice the amount recorded in the general ledger. The difference between the two documents is $277.04. For August 11, 2006, the general ledger indicated that $389.98 in sales tax was collected. The cumulative sales report reflected that $779.96 was collected, an amount exactly twice the amount recorded in the general ledger. The difference between the two documents is $389.98. The difference in the amounts reflected in the general ledger (which Rowe's claims is the more accurate document), and the cumulative sales register (which Ms. Arrington relied upon), is $1,193.98, the amount of additional tax assessed for this item. Ms. Arrington acknowledged at hearing that she credited the cumulative sales register numbers over Rowe's general ledger documents, and that she knew during the audit that there were issues relating to BR Data that occurred during the audit period. The only document upon which she relied was the cumulative sales register. Given the credible testimony by Robert Rowe and Neil Newman regarding the process and the problems encountered with the interface of data, and the fact that in each instance, the difference was an exact multiple of the amount reflected in the general ledger, the greater weight of the evidence presented at hearing supports the finding that the general ledger represents the amount of sales tax actually collected and paid by Rowe's. This finding means that not only is the assessment of additional sales tax for August 2006, in error, but also that means that Rowe's met the second requirement for avoiding the assessment of additional taxes under section 212.12(14) for failing to use the bracket system. Ms. Arrington also found that Rowe's had not agreed in writing to future compliance with the bracket system. On or about November 19, 2009, in conjunction with the Audit Conference, Ms. Arrington prepared an Agreement for Future Compliance (Agreement) and provided it to Mr. Rowe for signature. The text of the Agreement, which is on DOR letterhead and specifically references the Sales and Use Tax Audit number for Rowe's, states: The following dealer had demonstrated the proper actions required by Section 212.12(14),(a) and (b), F.S. (see attachment), and agree [sic] to sign the following suggested form to compliance with the laws concerning brackets applicable to the dealer's transactions in the future. Rowe's Supermarkets, LLC - BP#2134130, succeeded by Rowe's IGA, LLC - 3082649 agrees to future compliance with the laws and rules concerning the proper application of the tax bracket system to the dealer's transactions. Mr. Rowe did not sign the Agreement at the Audit Conference because he wanted to be able to confirm that the point of sale system his store operated could be properly programmed to comply with the bracket system before signing a document stating he would comply. After discussions with both the vendor and Ms. Arrington, and making sure the system was in fact operating in compliance with the requirement, Mr. Rowe signed the Agreement on December 7, 2009, and returned it to the Department. Ms. Arrington did not recall receiving the Agreement, but also admitted she had no specific memory as to whether she received it. Her Case Activity Record indicates that on December 3, 2009, she spoke with Mr. Rowe about whether he was able to input the brackets in his point-of-sale system, and that he indicated he was able to do so. The greater weight of the evidence supports the finding that Mr. Rowe executed and returned the Agreement, and it is so found. The Use Tax Assessment Based on a Sampling Plan Section 212.12 allows the Department to use a sample from the taxpayer's records and project audit findings from the sample to the entire audit period where the records of the taxpayer are "adequate but voluminous in nature and substance." The statute, which is discussed in more detail in the Conclusions of Law, contemplates the use of a sampling plan agreed to by the taxpayer, and in the absence of an agreement, the taxpayer's right to have a review by the Department's Executive Director. The work papers to the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes dated January 8, 2010, include a sampling plan that runs from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006 for the calculation of use tax for purchases by Rowe's where sales tax was not collected by the vendor. Ms. Arrington reviewed Rowe's' records for expense purchases for 2006 to determine the total amount of additional tax due for that period. She then took the total additional tax on expenses for that period, i.e., $14,981.26, and divided it by 12 to obtain a monthly average additional tax of $1,248.44. She then applied that number to the entire 36-month audit period to determine a total assessment of additional tax for expense purchases of $44,943.84. Ms. Arrington testified that at the initial audit conference, she discussed different audit techniques in terms of sampling. However, a specific sampling plan was not discussed with Mr. Rowe and no Sampling Agreement was presented to him. No sampling plan was reviewed by the Executive Director. Ms. Arrington did not tell Mr. Rowe that 2006 would be the year used as the sample. Mr. Rowe never would have agreed to the use of 2006 as a sampling plan, because it would not be representative of the expenses incurred during the audit period. Using 2006 as a sampling period did not take into account the store closures during the audit period, and the concomitant reduction in expenses. Rowe's closed two grocery stores by March 2006, and operated only four stores for the remaining three quarters of the year. A third store was closed in January 2007, a fourth in May 2007 and a fifth in 2008, leaving only one store open for the entire audit period. All of the liquor stores were also closed during the audit period, the last one being sold in May 2008. Ms. Arrington knew that Rowe's had closed almost all of its stores during the audit period, and included information regarding the closings in her Standard Audit Report. She acknowledged at hearing that as the stores decreased, the expenses related to those stores would also most likely decrease. For the 12 months of 2006, the Department determined that an additional tax of $14,981.26 would be due, based on purchases of $253,637.22. There has been no evidence presented to rebut the accuracy of the tax assessment for these 2006 purchases. Petitioner presented evidence establishing that, for the 21 months of the audit period following 2006, Rowe's made purchases from the same vendors reflected in the 2006 sample of only $51,073.72, which would result in additional taxes of $3,575.16. No evidence was presented by either party as to whether there were any other purchases from other vendors for which taxes had not been paid. The difference between the use tax assessed against Rowe's by using the sampling plan and taxes due based on the actual purchases demonstrated at hearing is $22,642.08. In addition, there was one vendor, Advo, Inc. (Advo), which accounted for a significant percentage of the tax due based on the sampling plan. While the audit sample period was for twelve months, payments to Advo for a seven-month period accounted for approximately 58% of the total additional taxes due for expenses. There were no purchases from Advo after July 2006 because of Rowe's shrinking assets and inability to pay for direct advertising. Further, 15 of the 23 vendors reflected in the sample period from whom purchases were made had no sales to Rowe's from January 2007 through September 2008. The Department's work papers indicate that, within the sample year, the purchases tapered off significantly as the year progressed. Given the known closure of five grocery stores and six liquor stores during the audit period, using a time period where the most stores were open is not representative of the expenses experienced by Petitioner, and use of the sampling plan to which the taxpayer had not agreed was inappropriate, and led to an inflated assessment of additional taxes. The Effective Tax Rate at the Liquor Stores During the audit period, Rowe's operated package liquor stores adjacent to the grocery stores. By the time the audit commenced, Rowe's no longer owned any of the liquor stores, and no longer had the cash register tapes from the liquor stores. Because of the lack of cash register tapes, the auditor was unable to determine the effective tax rate Rowe's was collecting. She did not, however, ask Rowe's what rate was collected. A review of the sales tax returns indicates that it remitted a flat rate of 6 or 7 percent, depending on the county. These rates were consistent with what Rowe's was collecting for the grocery store sales, and cash register tapes were available from the grocery store. Ms. Arrington applied the tax rates identified in Florida Administrative Code Rules 12A-1.057(3)(a) and 12A- 15.012(2)(a), both of which identify the rate that should be collected where the dealer sells package goods but does not sell mixed drinks; does not separately itemize the sales price and the tax; and does not put the public on notice that tax is included in the total charge. The work papers paraphrase but do not quote the rules. With respect to the liquor store in St. Johns County, the work papers state: "[a]ccording to Rule 12A-1.057(3)(a), F.A.C., when the dealer is located in a county with no surtax and the public has not been put on notice through the posting of price lists or signs prominently displayed throughout the establishment that the tax is included in the total charge, package stores which sell no mixed drinks shall remit tax at the effective rate of .0635." With respect to the liquor stores in Clay and Duval Counties, the work papers state: "[a]ccording to Rule 12A- 15.012(2)(a)1., F.A.C., when a dealer, located in a county imposing a 1% surtax, sells package goods but does not sell mixed drinks and does not put the public on notice that tax is included in the total charge, the dealer is required to remit tax at the effective tax rate of .0730." The Department's auditor made the assumption that tax was not separately itemized for package store sales and assessed the additional tax accordingly. She did not ask the taxpayer whether this was the case and did not ask about signage in the package stores that were no longer owned by Rowe's. Mr. Rowe testified that the same point-of-sale program was used for the liquor stores as were used for the adjacent grocery stores. That program separately identified the tax due. His testimony is unrebutted and is credited. The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights At hearing, Petitioner took the position that the Department violated the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights as stated in section 213.015(5), by its failure to provide Petitioner with a "narrative description which explains the basis of audit changes, proposed assessments, assessments." In its Proposed Recommended Order, however, Petitioner candidly acknowledged that the evidence did not support a finding consistent with Petitioner's position. In light of this concession, no further findings of fact are necessary with respect to this issue. Collectibility Rowe's asserted in its challenge that it was unable to pay any taxes assessed because it was no longer in business and no longer had any assets. The Department declined to exercise its discretion to compromise the tax assessment based on collectability. While not specifically stated in its Notice of Decision, this position was apparently based upon the belief that the taxes could be paid by Rowe's IGA, LLC, to whom the assets of Rowe's was sold, and which shares the same managing member, Robert Rowe. The two companies share a managing member and one common location, which Rowe's sold to Rowe's IGA. However, no evidence was presented regarding the specifics of the assets sold to Rowe's IGA, and the only evidence presented indicates that any proceeds from the sale went to pay the secured lender for Rowe's, Textron Financial. Other than the involvement of Robert Rowe, no connection between the companies was established. Rowe's provided to the Department the copy of a judgment against it for $324,963.33, which bears interest at a rate of 8% annually. The Department did not identify any assets from which either the assessment or the judgment could be paid.
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: Reduces the Department's assessment for additional taxes, penalties, and interest by any amounts attributable to the failure to comply with the sales bracket system at Petitioner's grocery stores; Reduces the Department's assessment for additional use taxes, penalties, and interest by any amounts attributable to the failure to remit all taxes due for the month of August 2006; Reduces the Department's assessment for additional use taxes, penalties, and interest by any amounts attributable to expense purchases for the period January 2007 through September 2008; Sustains the assessment for additional use tax, penalties, and interest for expense purchases in calendar year 2006; Reduces the Department's assessment for additional use taxes, penalties, and interest by any amounts attributable to the asserted basis that Petitioner should have collected tax at a higher effective tax rate at its liquor stores based upon the application of rules 12A-1.057(3)(a) or 12A-15.012(2)(a); Sustains the Department's assessment for additional sales tax, penalties, and interest against Petitioner for failure to pay tax on certain capital asset purchases identified in the audit; Sustains the Department's assessment for additional sales tax, penalties, and interest against Petitioner for failure to pay sales tax on commercial rent payments under certain of Petitioner's store leases identified in the audit; and Sustains the Department's assessment for additional sales tax, penalties, and interest against Petitioner for failure to pay sales tax on Petitioner's payment of ad valorem taxes under certain of Petitioner's store leases identified in the audit. In addition, it is Recommended that the Department reconsider its decision as to whether the remaining assessment is collectible, and whether it is in the best interest of the state to compromise the assessment, based on the record contained in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 31st day of July, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is employed as a Tax Auditor IV in Respondent's Property Tax Administration Program. He is assigned to work in Respondent's Regional Office in Jacksonville, Florida. The counties within the Jacksonville Region for Property Tax Administration are: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Putnam, St. John and Flagler. In January of 1996, Petitioner wrote to John Everton, Director of Respondent's Property Tax Administration Program requesting permission to run for Tax Collector of Clay County. In February of 1996, Petitioner talked to Mr. Everton's secretary. After making this call, Petitioner understood that Respondent's attorneys had his application to run for elective office and that he would soon receive an answer. Petitioner sent Mr. Everton an E Mail message on or about March 6, 1996. In this message, Petitioner asked Mr. Everton to check on his request to run for office and to expedite it immediately because time was of the essence. That same day, Mr. Everton responded to Petitioner's request with an E mail message. Expressing his apologies, Mr. Everton advised Petitioner that Respondent's attorneys had Petitioner's initial request. Mr. Everton stated that he would request that the attorneys respond immediately to Petitioner's inquiry. On or about March 13, 1996 Mr. Everton advised Petitioner that he would have to send his request for approval to run for local office directly to the agency head pursuant to the directive contained in Rule 60K-13.0031(1), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated March 18, 1996 Petitioner requested that Larry Fuchs, Respondent's Executive Director, grant him permission to run for Tax Collector of Clay County. Mr. Fuchs received this letter on March 29, 1996. Mr. Fuchs responded to Petitioner's request by letter dated April 5, 1996. He reminded Petitioner that Rule 60K-13.0031(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires employees to apply directly to the agency head when requesting approval to become a candidate for local office. Mr. Fuchs then gave several reasons why he could not certify to the Department of Management Services that Petitioner's candidacy would involve no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes with his state employment. More specifically, Mr. Fuchs' April 5, 1996 letter stated in relevant part that: Under section 195.002, Florida Statutes, the Department of Revenue has supervision of the tax collection and all other aspects of the administration of such taxes. Your position with the Department may require you to review or audit the activities of the office you propose to seek. Also some of your duties in supervising other officials in the administration of property taxes may be affected by your proposed candidacy. Your job requires you to review appropriate tax returns, and other records to resolve complex issues related to taxing statutes administered by the Department of Revenue. It also requires you to identify and scrutinize transactions to ascertain whether taxpayers have escaped paying property taxes. In addition, it also requires you to review and audit procedures used by counties to identify and value tangible personal property and accomplish statutory compliance, to investigate taxpayer complaints, to conduct field review with county staff as appropriate, and to provide education an assistance to county taxing officials. Because of the Department's statutory super- vision of the office of tax collector, there cannot be a certification that your candidacy would involve "no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes " with your state employment within the definitions of section 110.233(4), Florida Statutes. The letter went on to say that: This letter is a specific instruction to you that you should not qualify or become a candidate for office while employed in your current position. If you wish to commence your campaign by performing the pre-filing requirements, the law requires that you first resign from the Department. Failure to do so shall result in disciplinary action to dismiss you from your position in accordance with the Department's disciplinary standards and procedures, and Rule 60K-4.010, F.A.C., the Department's Code of Conduct, Section 110.233, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60K-13.002(3), F.A.C. After receiving the above decision, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge the denial of his request to run for Tax Collector of Clay County by letter dated April 10, 1996. Respondent received this letter on April 16, 1996. Respondent referred Petitioner's request for a formal hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 26, 1996. Petitioner responded to the Division of Administrative Hearings' Initial Order on May 7, 1996 advising the undersigned that he was unavailable for hearing May 28, 1996 through June 10, 1996 and July 5, 1996. He also included an initial pleading requesting, among other things, that Respondent immediately allow him to run for office and pay his filing fee because, in his opinion, it was too late for him to qualify using the alternative method of submitting petitions. On May 21, 1996 this matter was scheduled for hearing on July 9, 1996. Respondent filed a Unilateral Response to the Initial Order and a Prehearing Statement on May 30, 1996. On June 14, 1996 Petitioner filed a letter stating that it was impossible for him to be prepared for the hearing scheduled for July 9, 1996 for two reasons: (a) he had just returned to work after two weeks of vacation; and (b) he was overwhelmed by discovery associated with his upcoming hearing. Petitioner requested that this matter be continued until sometime after August 15, 1996. He represented that Respondent had no objection to his request. An order dated June 20, 1996 rescheduled the case for hearing on August 19, 1996. On July 18, 1996, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter granting him permission to qualify and file the necessary paperwork to become a candidate for Clay County Tax Collector. The letter also advised Petitioner of the conditions under which he could begin campaign activities while on Respondent's payroll. Respondent's change in position was due in part to the pending Final Order in Hendrick v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 96-2054. Respondent faxed its July 18, 1996 letter to Petitioner's office at 2:38 p.m. Petitioner's immediate supervisor contacted Petitioner at his home later that day at approximately 3:45 p.m. Petitioner did not request annual leave for the following day so that he could take whatever steps were necessary in order to qualify as a candidate for the office of Tax Collector. Instead, he opted to follow through with his previously arranged appointments for July 19, 1996. On July 22, 1996 Petitioner faxed a letter to Respondent indicating that Respondent had not given him sufficient time in which to meet all requirements to qualify as a candidate for elective office by noon on July 19, 1996. In order to qualify as a candidate for elective office in Clay County, Petitioner had to declare a bank depository for campaign purposes and designate a campaign treasurer. If Petitioner intended to use the alternative method of qualifying by filing petitions, he had to file an alternative affidavit and obtain petition forms from the Clay County Supervisor of Elections between January 3, 1996 and June 21, 1996. He had to submit the signed petitions (Democrats-688; Republicans-990, Independent-1,873) to the Supervisor of Elections on or before June 24, 1996. Regardless of whether Petitioner intended to qualify by paying a fee (Major Party-$5,876.40; Independent-$4,309.36) or by using the alternative petition method, he had to complete all paperwork on or before noon of July 19, 1996. Petitioner did not qualify by either method.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's request for certification to the Department of Management Services that his candidacy for the office of Clay County Tax Collector would involve no interest which conflicts, or activity which interferes, with his state employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 15th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick A. Loebig, Esquire Peter S. Fleitman, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Floyd L. Hylton 103 Century 21 Drive, Suite 213 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's business records for the period July 1, 1985, through June 30, 1990. Respondent determined a deficiency in sales tax of $174,823.96, including penalty and interest through August 22, 1990. Petitioner objected to the deficiency. Respondent reviewed the audit, and made audit changes that are the subject of this proceeding. The audit changes determined a deficiency in use tax of $76,035.60, including tax ($47,910.10), penalty ($11,977.68), and interest through March 12, 1991 ($16,147.60). Interest accrues daily in the amount of $15.75. A First Revised Notice Of Intent To Make Sales Tax Changes, for the reduced assessment of $76,035.60, was issued on March 21, 1991. A Notice Of Proposed Assessment was issued on July 2, 1991. The Notice Of Proposed Assessment became a Final Assessment on August 31, 1991. Respondent made a prima facie showing of the factual and legal basis for the use tax assessment. Section 120.575(2), Florida Statutes. 1/ The audit and assessment are procedurally correct. Tax, interest, and penalty are correctly computed. Formation Petitioner was incorporated in Florida, in January, 1983, by Mr. B. Theodore Troy, president and sole shareholder. Petitioner's principal place of business is 101 Wymore Road, Suite 224, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Petitioner conducted business as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida. Mr. Troy and his wife operated the business until liquidating Petitioner's assets in 1992. Operation Petitioner sold direct mail advertising to Florida businesses. Petitioner operated pursuant to a franchise agreement with American Advertising Distributors, Inc., of Mesa, Arizona ("AAD"). AAD was Petitioner's franchisor until AAD filed for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner solicited orders from Florida businesses 2/ for advertising coupons designed and printed by AAD in Arizona. AAD mailed the advertising coupons to addressees in Florida who were potential customers for Florida businesses. Florida businesses placed orders with Petitioner on written contracts, or sales agreements, labeled "advertising orders." AAD was not a party to advertising orders. Advertising orders identified "AAD" as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida, and were imprinted with the name and address of "AAD" in Central Florida. Advertising orders specified the total charges, color and stock of paper, number of addressees, and areas of distribution. Petitioner assisted businesses with rough layout for art work. The rough layout was forwarded to AAD. AAD prepared finished art work and sent copies back to Petitioner for approval by Florida businesses. AAD then printed, collated, and mailed advertising coupons to addressees in Florida, without charge to addressees. Florida businesses paid non-refundable deposits when placing advertising orders. The remaining balance was paid upon approval of final art work. AAD did not submit invoices to Florida businesses. AAD submitted invoices to Petitioner for the amount due from Petitioner. 3/ Petitioner paid AAD 10 days before advertising coupons were mailed. Some advertising coupons were produced by Laberge Printers, Inc., in Orlando, Florida ("Laberge"). Coupons from Laberge were designed, printed, and distributed in the same manner as coupons from AAD. Two types of advertising coupons were provided by AAD and Laberge. The majority of coupons were distributed in coop mailings, or "bonus express" envelopes, containing coupons for up to 20 businesses. Bonus express envelopes were mailed approximately eight times a year. Advertising coupons were also distributed in "solo" mailings. A solo mailing was an individualized, custom printed coupon, or flyer, mailed to individual addressees. The total charges stated in advertising orders included the cost of services provided by Petitioner, AAD, and Laberge. Services included typesetting, art work, printing, inserting envelopes, and mailing. Florida imposed a tax on services, from July 1, 1987, through December 31, 1987. Petitioner collected and remitted tax imposed on the cost of services included in the total charges stated on advertising orders. Except for the services tax, neither Petitioner, AAD, nor Laberge collected and remitted sales or use tax to Florida or to Arizona. Petitioner never utilized resale certificates for any tax other than the tax on services. Collectibility Petitioner was financially able to pay the use tax assessment during 1990 and 1991. No later than August 22, 1990, Mr. Troy knew of the sales tax deficiency of $174,823.96. By March 21, 1991, Mr. Troy knew of the reduced use tax assessment of $76,035.60. During 1990 and 1991, Petitioner made discretionary payments to Mr. Troy of $110,389. Petitioner reported federal taxable income of $58,279 in 1990 and 1991. 4/ In arriving at taxable income, Petitioner deducted payments to Mr. Troy of $59,430 for compensation to officers, management fees, and salary. 5/ From taxable income of $58,279, Petitioner paid approximately $50,959 to Mr. Troy in nondeductible shareholder loans. 6/ Discretionary payments of $110,389, 7/ made to Mr. Troy in 1990 and 1991, were more than adequate to pay the use tax assessment of $76,036.60. At the end of 1991, Petitioner reported fixed assets with a book value of $14,933, a customer list valued at $104,447.72, and retained earnings of $102,605. The book value of intangible assets was $82,943, comprised primarily of the franchise, valued at $35,000, and goodwill of $45,000. Termination Of Operations But Continued Existence AAD petitioned for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner subsequently determined that its franchise and goodwill were worthless. In 1992, Petitioner reported a loss of $99,726 for federal tax purposes. All of Petitioner's assets, including its customer lists, were sold or transferred for $1,330 to Florida Mail, Inc. ("Florida Mail"). Florida Mail is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Mr. Troy. Florida Mail sells direct mail advertising; and shares Petitioner's principal place of business. Since 1992, Petitioner has been a shell corporation with $579 in assets.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the assessment of tax and interest and waive all of the penalty included in the assessment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of June, 1994.
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.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether portions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 12D-9.020 and 12D-9.025 constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; (2) whether sections of Modules Four and Six of the 2010 Value Adjustment Board Training are unpromulgated rules; and (3) whether Property Tax Oversight Bulletin 11-01 is an unpromulgated rule.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Turner is the Property Appraiser for Hillsborough County, Florida. Petitioners Crapo, Higgs, and Smith are the Property Appraisers for Alachua, Monroe, and Okaloosa Counties, respectively. Respondent, the Department of Revenue ("DOR"), is an agency of the State of Florida that has general supervision over the property tax process, which consists primarily of "aiding and assisting county officers in the assessing and collection functions." § 195.002(1), Fla. Stat. DOR is also required to prescribe "reasonable rules and regulations for the assessing and collecting of taxes . . . [to] be followed by the property appraisers, tax collectors . . . and value adjustment boards." § 195.027(1). Petitioner-Intervenor Roger A. Suggs is the Clay County Property Appraiser. Petitioner-Intervenor Gary R. Nikolitis is the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. Petitioner-Intervenor PAAF is a statewide nonprofit professional association consisting of 35 property appraisers in various counties throughout Florida. Petitioner-Intervenor FAPA is a statewide nonprofit professional organization of Florida property appraisers. Respondent-Intervenor FUTMA is a statewide nonprofit association consisting of 46 of the largest property taxpayers in Florida. Ms. Cucchi, the second Respondent-Intervenor, is a property owner and taxpayer in Hillsborough County. Background of Florida's Property Tax System Article VII, Section Four of the Florida Constitution mandates that all property be assessed at "just value," and further requires that the Legislature prescribe, by general law, regulations that "shall secure a just valuation of all property for ad valorem taxation." Pursuant to chapters 192 through 196 of the Florida Statutes, locally elected property appraisers in each of Florida's 67 counties develop and report property assessment rolls. The assessment rolls——which property appraisers prepare each year and submit to DOR by July 1——contain information such as the names and addresses of the property owners, as well as the just, assessed, and taxable values of the properties within each appraiser's respective county. DOR is responsible for reviewing and ultimately approving or disapproving the assessment rolls. § 193.1142, Fla. Stat. Once DOR approves the assessment rolls, the property appraiser mails a "Notice of Proposed Property Taxes and Non-ad Valorem Assessments" (known as a "TRIM" notice) to each property owner. § 200.069, Fla. Stat. The notices advise each owner of his property's assessment for that year, the millage (tax) rate set by the taxing authorities, and the dates of the budget hearing for those authorities. After receiving a TRIM notice, a property owner may request an informal conference with the property appraiser's office to discuss the assessment of his or her property. Alternatively, or in addition to the informal conference, a property owner may challenge the assessment by filing a petition with the county value adjustment board or by brining a legal action in circuit court. § 194.011(3), Fla. Stat.; § 194.171, Fla. Stat. Value Adjustment Boards Pursuant to section 194.015(1), Florida Statutes, each of Florida's 67 value adjustment boards is composed of two members of the county commission, one member of the school board, and two citizen members.1 Of particular import to the instant case, section 194.015(1) requires value adjustment boards to retain private counsel to provide advice regarding legal issues that may arise during value adjustment hearings.2 In counties with populations greater than 75,000, the value adjustment board must appoint special magistrates3 to conduct hearings and issue recommended decisions. § 194.035(1), Fla. Stat. Hearings in counties with 75,000 citizens or fewer may be conducted by either magistrates or the value adjustment board itself. Id. DOR has no involvement in the appointment or removal of board attorneys, magistrates, or the members of value adjustment boards. Should a property owner choose to contest an assessment through the value adjustment board process, the board's clerk schedules an administrative hearing and sends a notice of hearing to the property owner and the property appraiser. § 194.032(2), Fla. Stat. At the hearing, the determinative issue is whether the assessment of the particular property at issue exceeds just value. In the event that a property owner is dissatisfied with the outcome of a value adjustment hearing, an appeal may be taken to the circuit court, where a de novo hearing will be conducted. § 194.036(2) & (3), Fla. Stat. Under certain conditions, the property appraiser may likewise appeal an adverse value adjustment board decision to the circuit court. § 194.036(1).4 2008 Legislative Reforms Prior to 2008, DOR was not charged with the responsibility of training value adjustment boards or their magistrates. However, pursuant to chapter 2008-197, Laws of Florida, the Legislature enacted a series of changes to the VAB process, including a new requirement that DOR "provide and conduct training for special magistrates at least once each state fiscal year." See § 194.035(3), Fla. Stat. Immediately after enactment of the law, DOR initiated rulemaking and developed 2008 interim training for value adjustment boards and special magistrates. Persons required to take the training include all special magistrates, as well as value adjustment board members or value adjustment board attorneys in counties that do not use special magistrates. § 194.035(1) & (3), Fla. Stat. In addition to the new training requirement, chapter 2008-197 mandated that DOR develop a Uniform Policies and Procedures Manual for use by value adjustment boards and magistrates. The Uniform Policies and Procedures Manual ("The Manual"), which is posted on DOR's website and is separate and distinct from DOR's training materials for value adjustment boards, consists of relevant statutes, administrative rules, provisions of the Florida Constitution, as well as forms. The Manual is also accompanied by two sets of separate documents, which are likewise available on DOR's web page: (1) "Other Legal Resources Including Statutory Criteria; and (2) "Reference Materials Including Guidelines," consisting of guidelines and links to other reference materials, including DOR's value adjustment board training materials, bulletins, and advisements. The introduction to the "Reference Materials Including Guidelines" reads in relevant part as follows: The set of documents titled "Reference Materials Including Guidelines," contains the following items: Taxpayer brochure General description and internet links to the Department's training for value adjustment boards and special magistrates; Recommended worksheets for lawful decisions; The Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines; * * * 7. Internet links to Florida Attorney General Opinions, Government in the Sunshine Manual, PTO Bulletins and Advertisements, and other reference materials. These reference materials are for consideration, where appropriate, by value adjustment boards and special magistrates in conjunction with the Uniform Policies and Procedures Manual and with the Other Legal Resources Including Statutory Criteria. The items listed above do not have the force or effect of law as do provisions of the constitution, statutes, and duly adopted administrative rules. Revisions to Value Adjustment Board Procedural Rules Pursuant to section 194.011, Florida Statutes, the Legislature charged DOR with the responsibility to prescribe, by rule, uniform procedures——consistent with the procedures enumerated in section 194.034, Florida Statutes——for hearings before value adjustment boards, as well as procedures for the exchange of evidence between taxpayers and property appraisers prior to value adjustment hearings. On February 24, 2010, following a 12-month period of public meetings, workshops, and hearings, the Governor and Cabinet approved the adoption of chapter 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code, which is titled, "Requirements for Value Adjustment Board in Administrative Reviews; Uniform Rules of Procedure for Hearings Before Value Adjustment Boards." As discussed in greater detail in the Conclusions of Law of this Order, Petitioner Turner contends that portions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 12D-9.020, which delineate the procedures for the exchange of evidence between property appraisers and taxpayers, contravene section 194.011. Petitioner Turner further alleges that section 194.011 is contravened by parts of Florida Administrative Code Rule 12D- 9.025, which governs the procedures for conducting a value adjustment hearing and the presentation of evidence. 2010 Value Adjustment Training Materials In 2010, following the adoption of Rule Chapter 12D-9, DOR substantially revised the value adjustment board training materials. After the solicitation and receipt of public comments, the 2010 VAB Training was made available in late June 2010 on DOR's website. The 2010 VAB Training is posted on DOR's website in such a manner that an interested person must first navigate past a bold-font description which explains that the training is not a rule: This training is provided to comply with section 194.035, Florida Statutes. It is intended to highlight areas of procedure for hearings, consideration of evidence, development of conclusions and production of written decisions. This training is not a rule. It sets forth general information of which boards, board attorneys, special magistrates and petitioners / taxpayers should be aware in order to comply with Florida law. (Emphasis in original). The 2010 VAB Training consists of eleven sections, or "modules," portions of two of which Petitioners allege constitute unadopted rules: Module 4, titled "Procedures During the Hearing"; and Module 6, titled "Administrative Reviews of Real Property Just Valuations." While words and phrases such as "must," "should," and "should not" appear occasionally within the materials, such verbiage is unavoidable——and indeed necessary——in carrying out DOR's statutory charge of disseminating its understanding of the law to magistrates and value adjustment board members. Although DOR is required to create and disseminate training materials pursuant to section 194.035, the evidence demonstrates that the legal concepts contained within the 2010 VAB Training are not binding. Specifically, there is no provision of law that authorizes DOR to base enforcement or other action on the 2010 VAB Training, nor is there a statutory provision that provides a penalty in situations where a value adjustment board or special magistrate deviates from a legal principle enumerated in the materials. Further, the evidence demonstrates DOR has no authority to pursue any action against a value adjustment board or magistrate that chooses not to adhere to the legal concepts contained within the training. PTO Bulletin 11-01 On January 21, 2011, DOR issued Property Tax Oversight Bulletin 11-01, titled "Value Adjustment Board Petitions and the Eighth Criterion," to the value adjustment board attorneys for all 67 counties. DOR also disseminated courtesy copies of the bulletin by e-mail to over 800 interested parties. The bulletin, the full text of which is reproduced in the Conclusions of Law section of this Summary Final Order, consisted of a non-binding advisement regarding the use of the eighth just valuation criterion (codified in section 193.011(8), Florida Statutes5) in administrative reviews. The bulletin advised, in relevant part, that the eighth just value criterion: "must be properly considered in administrative reviews"; "is not limited to a sales comparison valuation approach"; and "must be properly considered in the income capitalization and cost less depreciation approaches" to valuation. The bulletin further advised that when "justified by sufficiently relevant and credible evidence, the Board or special magistrate should make an eighth criterion adjustment in any of the three valuation approaches." Although certain interested parties (i.e., a special magistrate in Nassau County, the director of valuation for the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's Office, and legal counsel for the Broward County value adjustment board) perceived the bulletin to be mandatory, the evidence demonstrates that value adjustment boards and magistrates were not required to abide by the bulletin's contents. As with the training materials, DOR possesses no statutory authority to base enforcement action on the bulletin, nor could any form of penalty be lawfully imposed against a magistrate or value adjustment board that deviates from the legal advice contained within the document. Further, there is no evidence that DOR has taken (or intends to take) any agency action in an attempt to mandate compliance with the bulletin.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's certificates of registration should be revoked for an alleged failure to file tax returns and to remit taxes to the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for collection of sales and use taxes in Florida, pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes (2011).1/ The Respondent is a Florida company doing business at 7810 U.S. Highway 19, Port Richey, Florida, and is a "dealer" as defined at section 212.06(2). The Respondent holds two certificates of registration issued by the Petitioner (Certificate No. 61-8012297146-3 and Certificate No. 61-8012297147-0) and is statutorily required to file tax returns and remit taxes to the Petitioner. As set forth herein, the Respondent has failed to file tax returns or has filed returns that were not accompanied by the appropriate tax payments. During the time the Respondent has held the certificates, the Petitioner has filed 15 separate warrants against the Respondent related to unpaid taxes, fees, penalties, and interest. The Petitioner is authorized to cancel a dealer's certificate of registration for failure of a dealer to comply with state tax laws. Prior to such cancellation, the Petitioner is required by statute to convene a conference with a dealer. On June 24, 2011, the Petitioner issued a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Notice). The conference was scheduled for July 27, 2011. The Respondent received the Notice and attended the conference. Certificate of Registration No. 61-8012297146-3 The Respondent failed to file tax returns related to Certificate No. 61-8012297146-3 for the period of August through December 2001. The Petitioner assessed estimated taxes of $587.50, fees of $110.95, and a penalty of $285.00. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $633.79. Additionally, the Respondent failed to remit taxes of $5,623.63 related to Certificate No. 61-8012297146-3 that were due according to his filed tax returns. Based thereon, the Respondent assessed fees of $994.58 and a penalty of $2,478.26. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $4,702.27. As of the date of the Notice, the Respondent's total unpaid obligation on Certificate No. 61-8012297146-3 was $15,415.98, including taxes of $6,211.13, fees of $1,105.53, penalties of $2,763.26, and accrued interest of $5,336.06. Certificate of Registration No. 61-8012297147-0 The Respondent failed to file tax returns related to Certificate No. 61-8012297147-0 for the months of June 2000, September 2000, May 2001, and August 2001. The Petitioner assessed estimated taxes of $619.00 and fees of $202.00. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $782.56. Additionally, the Respondent failed to remit taxes related to Certificate No. 61-8012297147-0 of $4,332.48 that were due according to his filed tax returns. Based thereon, the Respondent assessed fees of $771.71 and a penalty of $1,576.87. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $4,725.27. As of the date of the Notice, the Respondent's total unpaid obligation related to Certificate No. 61-8012297147-0 was $13,009.89, including taxes of $4,951.48, fees of $973.71, penalties of $1,576.87, and accrued interest of $5,507.83. The Audit A separate audit of the Respondent's business records for the period of February 2004 through January 2007 resulted in an additional assessment totaling $9,314.07, including taxes of $5,048.23, fees of $661.76, and a penalty of $252.42. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $3,351.66. At the July 27, 2011, conference, the parties negotiated a compliance agreement under which the Respondent would have retained the certificates of registration. The agreement required the Respondent to make an initial deposit of $2,000.00 by August 15, 2011, and then to make periodic payments towards satisfying the unpaid obligation. The Respondent failed to pay the $2,000.00 deposit, and the Petitioner subsequently filed the Complaint at issue in this proceeding. As of the date that the Complaint was filed, the Respondent owed a total of $37,797.66 to the State of Florida, including taxes of $15,004.34, estimated taxes of $1,206.50, fees of $2,741.00, penalties of $4,592.55, and accrued interest of $14,253.27.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order revoking the certificates of registration held by the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 1st day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or, rather, whether he leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as Respondent alleges.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all relevant times, Petitioner Philip E. Hancock ("Hancock") was a sole proprietor doing business in and around Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under the names "Action Plant Rental" and "Action Plants." Respondent Department of Revenue ("Department"), an agency of the State of Florida, is authorized to administer the state's tax laws. An Overview of Hancock's Businesses In 1980, Hancock and his then-wife purchased a nursery and, as proprietors, started a business called "Landscape Concepts." Initially, the couple's business activities involved landscaping and (b) sales of plants and nursery stock at wholesale (mostly) and retail. Sometime in 1983, Landscape Concepts began "renting" plants and trees for special events, such as weddings, banquets, and charity fundraisers.2 In time, this plant rental business eclipsed the original landscaping and sales operations, and by the late 1980's the ascendant enterprise was dubbed "Action Plant Rental."3 In 1990, having established Action Plant Rental, the Hancocks sold their nursery, whereupon Landscape Concepts stopped selling plants on a regular basis. The landscaping business, in contrast, tapered off gradually, continuing for several more years until being discontinued completely at the end of 1993. As of January 1994, plant rental was Petitioner's sole vocation. A Closer Look At the Plant Rental Business The evidence concerning the details of how Hancock's plant rental business operated during the audit period is relatively sparse, consisting of little, if anything, other than Hancock's testimony, which is generally credible as far as it goes, but not comprehensive. Hancock's clients, for the most part, were not the individuals who hosted or sponsored the events for which Action Plant Rental supplied "green décor" (to use Hancock's phrase), but rather were the event planners, designers, florists, and hotels (which frequently acted as planners in connection with events held on their premises) who had been hired by the hosts or sponsors to make their events happen. Thus, Hancock usually did not deal directly with, for example, the bride, but with the bride's wedding planner. In effect, he was a subcontractor. Hancock did not enter into written contracts with his clients. When a client retained Hancock, the client informed Hancock when and where the event would be held, and told Hancock (or asked him for an opinion about) which plants would be appropriate. The evidence is ambiguous as to the degree of Hancock's input and discretion in selecting the particular plants to bring to a given event. While the undersigned is persuaded that Hancock had some involvement in choosing the plants at least some of the time, it cannot be found that this service, to the extent provided, added substantial value to the transaction——or was one for which clients specifically and knowingly paid. When the time came for Hancock to perform the agreement, he delivered the plants and trees to the site and, at a time before the event was to begin, set them up in the hall or ballroom. Setting up the plants to create a pleasing and appropriate environment no doubt required decorating skill. It is undisputed, moreover, that Hancock commonly added decorating touches, such as lights and decorative containers, to his plants and trees, which made the display more attractive. What is less clear, however, is whether clients purchased Hancock's decorating expertise——or if, instead, Hancock executed the commands of someone else who decided how to arrange and present the plants. On this point, as others, it might have been helpful to hear from some clients. As it is, Hancock's own testimony is somewhat ambiguous. While the question is extremely close, the undersigned is persuaded, on the evidence presented, that Hancock usually operated under the direction of his client and had relatively little control over the design and arrangement of his plants and trees at the event site. Thus, the undersigned is unable to find that Hancock's decorating services provided the ultimate value to Hancock's clients. Once the plants were set in place and Hancock was assured that the arrangement satisfied his client, Hancock left the event site. (This meant, of course, that someone——the client, the host, or even a guest——could have moved the plants around.4 The Department contends that Hancock's absence from the premises demonstrates decisively that possession and control of the plants was surrendered to his client. The undersigned has given this fact some weight, but not a great deal. For one thing, there is no persuasive evidence that the client typically remained on-site with the plants. Further, since the plants were generally set up in a "public" place (as opposed to a personal space such as an office) over which neither the client, nor the host, nor the guests had exclusive control,5 the undersigned is not persuaded that the client or others attending the event had possession and control of the plants in any meaningful sense. Indeed, under the Department's theory, the plants apparently would have been in the constructive possession, at least, of everyone present at the party——a conclusion that runs counter to common sense and ordinary experience. The opportunity to move a plant is not, in the undersigned’s mind, equivalent to having a possessory right or power over the plant.) When the event was over, Hancock returned to the site to retrieve and remove his plants. Later, Hancock sent the client an invoice for his "services." As far as the evidence shows, Hancock did not bill his clients separately for delivery, set up, removal, or design, but rather he charged a lump sum for the plants, which price included these associated services as part of the total package. Petitioner's History As a Sales Tax-Paying Dealer From at least 1985, and continuing through the middle of 1994, Landscape Concepts, as a registered dealer having identification number 16-03-109301-76, collected and remitted sales taxes on the revenues generated through retail plant sales and plant rentals, filing monthly sales tax returns as legally required.6 If a client gave Petitioner a resale certificate, however, Petitioner did not collect sales tax from that client. Because most of Petitioner's plant rental customers were other businesses (e.g. event planners, florists, and hotels) that provided resale certificates to Petitioner, a relatively small percentage of these transactions were taxed. In mid-1994, while in one of the Department's regional offices attending to some since forgotten sales tax-related matter, Hancock was shown Rule 12A-1.071 of the Florida Administrative Code. This Rule then contained the following provision: (35)(a) A decorating contractor who uses materials and supplies such as bunting, streamers, colored paper, wreaths, pennants, lights, rope, etc., in fulfilling a contract which requires the furnishing of arrangements and decorations to, and their subsequent removal from, hotels, offices, public buildings, etc., is the consumer of such materials and supplies and shall pay tax on their acquisition. The contractor's charge under such contract is a service charge and is exempt. Fla. Admin. Code R. 12A-1.071(35)(a).7 Hancock concluded that he was entitled to the benefit of the foregoing "decorator's exemption." Hancock asked a local employee of the Department whether he could claim the exemption, and she advised him to write a letter to the Department's main office in Tallahassee. Hancock sent the Department a letter announcing his intent to stop filing monthly sales tax returns. Enclosed with this letter was Hancock's sales tax certificate, which Hancock purported to "relinquish." The Department did not respond to Hancock's letter. Hancock did not file another sales tax return.8 The Audit and Protest In January 2001, the Department commenced a sales and use tax audit of Hancock's plant rental business, initially concentrating on the five-year period from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 2000. The Department later enlarged the audit period to span 16 years, reaching all the way back to June 1, 1985, and continuing through June 30, 2001. This expansion was based on the Department's belief that Hancock had never filed any sales tax returns respecting his business——a belief that, as found above, would prove to be incorrect. After concluding that Hancock's tax records were "adequate but voluminous," the Department used a sampling method to calculate the amount of tax allegedly owed.9 To determine the total amount of revenue subject to sales tax, the Department used as a starting point the gross receipts figures as reported on Hancock's federal income tax returns for the years 1995 through 2000, inclusive.10 From these figures, the Department calculated the average monthly receipts for each of the six years in question (by dividing 12 into each respective year's gross sales revenue). It also computed an average annual gross sales figure (by dividing 6 into the sum of the known annual gross receipts), along with an average average-monthly sales amount (by dividing 6 into the sum of the average monthly receipts). Year Here are the relevant Gross Sales numbers: Avg. Monthly Sales 1995 $ 99,045 $ 8,253.75 1996 $113,973 $ 9,497.75 1997 $171,721 $14,310.08 1998 $169,961 $14,163.42 1999 $126,306 $10,525.50 2000 $154,253 $12,854.42 Average Annual Gross Sales: $139,210.00 Average Average-Monthly Sales: $ 11,600.82 The Department apparently acquired more specific information regarding monthly receipts for the 11-month period from January through November 2000. During this period, Hancock's gross receipts totaled $113,661.00.11 The Department determined, based on these figures, that the total tax due for this particular period was $6,861.41. Dividing 113,661 into 6,861.41, the Department derived a "percentage of error" of .060367. This "percentage of error" was effectively the tax rate because, as we have seen, the Department believed that Hancock had paid no taxes whatsoever. The "percentage of error" slightly exceeded 6 percent (the present state sales tax rate) due to the inclusion of some county taxes.12 The Department computed the total sales tax allegedly due and owing as follows. To determine the tax due per month for the 121 months comprising the periods from (a) June 1985 through December 1994 and (b) January through June 2001, for which there were no "known-sales" numbers, the Department applied the "percentage of error" (=tax rate) against the average average-monthly sales figure of $11,600.82. To determine the tax due per month for the years 1995 through 2000, the Department applied the "percentage of error" against each respective year's average monthly sales figure. The sum of these monthly figures equaled the total alleged tax liability. Here are the numbers: Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1985 — Dec 1994 (115 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 80,535.65 Jan (12 — Dec 1995 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1996 months) 9,497.7613 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan (12 — Dec 1997 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan (12 — Dec 1998 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1999 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan (12 — Dec 2000 months) 12,854.4314 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 135,159.47 In sum, the Department found that Hancock was liable for $134,337.17 in state sales taxes and $822.30 in County Taxes, see endnote 12, which amounts, when added together, equaled $135,159.47. Additionally, the Department found that Hancock owed small amounts of state use taxes in connection with several fixed assets. This aspect of the case received little attention, if any, at final hearing and accordingly will not be examined in great detail here. The following table summarizes the amounts that the Department claims are due and owing: Asset Transaction Date Tax Due Computer September 1995 229.12 Office refrigerator April 1997 24.00 Computer October 1998 72.00 Office Furniture December 1998 21.62 Printer May 1999 24.66 371.40 In January 2002, the Department notified Hancock that it intended to collect the alleged tax deficiencies just described, in the total principal amount of $135,530.87. In addition, the Department claimed $135,666.86 in interest through January 2, 2002, together with a total of $52,359.05 in penalties, making a grand total of $323,556.78. Hancock disputed the assessments and timely requested a formal administrative hearing. Ultimate Factual Determinations The factual question whether Hancock performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as the Department contends, is very close, at least based on the evidence presented. On a better record it might have been possible to answer this question with greater confidence——and, indeed, to obtain a different result. On this relatively limited record, however, the undersigned finds that the weight of the evidence tips ever so slightly in the Department's favor, primarily because it appears more likely than not that Hancock's clients were given a meaningful right to direct the use of the material personal property involved, namely the live plants and trees. Thus, while reasonable minds could differ, the undersigned finds that Hancock was engaging in the taxable business activity of leasing personal property. The evidence does not establish, however, and hence the undersigned does not find, that Hancock filed a grossly false or substantially incorrect return or made a substantial underpayment of tax. Likewise, Hancock did not file any fraudulent returns. Rather, Hancock properly filed returns through mid-1994, paying all of the sales and use taxes then due and owing. What Hancock failed to do was make all required tax payments after May 1994——a significant default, to be sure, but one that leaves him less liable, in fact, for back-taxes than the Department has contended. Hancock's decision to stop collecting and remitting sales taxes, moreover, was based not upon an intent to defraud but upon an honest, if mistaken, belief that the business of Action Plant Rental fell within the "decorator's exemption."15 Apart from any question of liability, the Department's assessment of the amount of state sales taxes and County Taxes allegedly due and owing for the period from June 1985 through December 1993 is clearly erroneous, for at least three reasons. First, the state sales tax was not six percent during that entire period, yet the Department has computed Hancock's alleged tax liability as if it were.16 Second, the Department did not make any adjustments to account for the time-value of money when it projected sales figures from 1995-2000 back as many as 15 years. It is commonly known, however, that dollars earned in the year 2000, for example, had less purchasing power than, say, 1985 dollars; thus, sales figures from 2000 must be discounted if a fair and reasonable comparison to 1985 is to be made. The Department's failure to reduce recent earnings to the then- present value of income derived from plant rentals in the earlier years of the audit period is tantamount to charging interest——which, of course, the Department has also assessed, separately. Finally, the Department's calculation assumed, incorrectly, that (a) Hancock's business had not changed during the entire 16-year audit period and (b) Hancock had never paid any sales taxes. In fact, until the end of 1993, Hancock derived income not only from his plant rental business but also from landscaping and plant sales; not only that, he paid sales taxes on the receipts from these activities, through May 1994. In sum, then, even if Hancock were liable for the taxes that allegedly accrued before 1994, the Department's figures for that period of the audit are simply too unreliable to be credited. Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1994 — Dec 1994 (7 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,902.17 Jan — Dec 1995 (12 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan — Dec 1996 (12 months) 9,497.7617 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan — Dec 1997 (12 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan — Dec 1998 (12 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan — Dec 1999 (12 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan — Dec 2000 (12 months) 12,854.4318 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 59,525.99 It is found, therefore, that Hancock owes state sales taxes and County Taxes in the following sums: Additionally Hancock must pay use taxes amounting to $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the total principal amount of taxes proved to be due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order directing Hancock to pay state sales taxes and County Taxes in the total amount of $59,525.99, plus state use taxes in the amount of $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the principal sum of back-taxes due and owing. In addition, Hancock should be ordered to pay interest and penalties on the unpaid taxes, in amounts to be determined by the Department in accordance with the methodologies reflected in the audit work papers that are included in the evidentiary record of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 2004.
