The Issue Whether there is probable cause for petitioner to bring an action against respondents, or any of them, for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act?
Findings Of Fact Mark Sherwood Turner started working for Gulf Coast Motors in 1982. At the time, Charles E. Pace owned all of the inventory and other assets of the business, a used car lot at 301 Beverly Parkway in Pensacola, Florida. When Mark Turner's name was added to the fictitious name papers, it was not because he had acquired an ownership interest in the business; it was done in order to effectuate an agreement between him and Mr. Pace: They had agreed that Turner could use the lot to display his own cars and otherwise to operate his own, independent used car sales business, without incurring the expense of obtaining his own motor vehicle dealer's license. In exchange, Turner was to run Pace's business in Pace's absence. They kept separate books, and neither Turner had an ownership interest in the cars sold to Messrs. Hayes, Allen and Crutchfield, or Ms. Youmans. Later Pace sold one Richardson the accounts receivable generated by Gulf Coast Motors. Richardson subsequently assigned to Mark Turner everything he had acquired from Pace. On March 11, 1983, the corporate respondent was organized and Mark Turner acquired an interest in Gulf Coast Motors, Inc. Mark's brother David Jerry Turner began working at the used car lot a year or two before the final hearing. He came in three days a week, worked in the office and occasionally acted as a salesman. On June 25, 1984, he also acquired an interest in Gulf Coast Motors, Inc. Crutchfield On March 15, 1984, Joel Harold Crutchfield bought a Dodge Monaco for $1531 after Joe Smith told him it was in good mechanical condition. He signed a form contract that had "GULF COAST MOTORS" at the top with "Charlie Pace" and "Mark Turner," printed underneath. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Nobody else signed this undated form contract, which provided, among other things: Any payment late will include a late charge of $5.00 for every three days late . . . GULF COAST MOTORS has full rights to repossess any vehicle with a payment three days late. If any vehicle is repossessed the buyer has up to 10 days in which to pay the vehicle off in full and a $100.00 repossession charge to redeem the vehicle. Mr. Crutchfield also signed a form warranty disclaimer, stating "THIS USED MOTOR VEHICLE IS SOLD AS IS WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY . . .". Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Mark Turner and Glen Padgett witnessed his signature on the warranty disclaimer. Mr. Crutchfield understood that he was buying the car "as is." Under the agreement, Mr. Crutchfield made a downpayment of $250 and undertook bi-weekly payments of $60 to retire a balance of $1281. Joe Smith signed an undated receipt for $250 on which "GULF COAST MOTORS" was stamped. David J. Turner signed a similarly stamped receipt for $60 on March 31, 1984. Mark Turner's and David Turner's names were on front of the office building at the car lot. The night following the purchase, Mr. Crutchfield had to buy a new starter for the car. When he drove the car home, he discovered that the brakes, the brake lights and the horn did not work. Only three lug nuts held each tire to its wheel. About a month after he had the car, the front end dropped and the car was "so low it looked like it would hit the road"; the frame was broken. Eventually Mr. and Mrs. Crutchfield decided to give the car back because Joe Smith and Charlie Pace refused to fix the frame. They made their last payment on or about September 17, 1984. Mrs. Crutchfield left the car on the lot and walked off ignoring calls to come back. A couple of days later the car was gone. The Crutchfields never received any correspondence in connection with the car thereafter. Youmans Frances Gayle Youmans also purchased a car on March 15, 1984, and also made a down payment of $250.00. She also dealt with Joe Smith. For a sales price of $1495.00, which with the dealer handling charge of $25.00, tag and title transfer fees, came to $1636.00, Ms. Youmans acquired a 1974 Buick that had been driven 78,482 miles. She agreed to pay the balance of $1380.00 in $25.00 weekly installments. On the vehicle registration certificate "GULF OOAST MOTORS" is shown as the "SELLER, FLORIDA DEALER, OR OTHER PREVIOUS OWNER," and as the first lienholder. Joe Smith, C. E. Pace, David J. Turner, Mark Turner and Lisa Russo signed receipts for various weekly payments she made. The day she bought the car it backfired on a test drive. Mr. Smith told her that it was the carburetor and that he would get a mechanic to fix it. Ms. Youmans is not an automobile mechanic; she works as a maid. She signed an "as is" disclaimer, which she did not understand. On March 16, 1984, she spoke to Joe Smith about fixing the car. He promised her repeatedly that he would arrange for a mechanic to fix it and told her not to take it to anybody else. She left the car parked at her home for more than two months, making weekly payments the while, on the strength of these assurances. On March 16, 1984 Ms. Youmans made application for a temporary license tag. A form application for vehicle registration was partially completed on April 19, 1984. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Ms. Youmans asked Joe Smith to arrange for the car to be picked up and taken to the car lot, because she was afraid to drive it. After she had made the last in an unbroken series of weekly payments, on June 15, 1984, the car was towed. The next day Joe Smith told her to continue the weekly payments so that she could have the car back when she paid the mechanic's bill. About a week later the car "ran," and about a week after that she appeared with $155.00, enough to pay for the mechanic, for towing ($50.00) and to bring payments (with late charges) current. Mark Turner refused the money, pounded his fist on a table, and told her to leave. Still later she noticed that the car was no longer on the lot. Allen On March 24, 1984, Donald Gene Allen purchased a 1973 Volkswagen from a salesman named Smith, making a down payment of $300.00 and agreeing to weekly payments of $35.00 to retire a balance of $2180.00. He signed a form contract that had "GULF COAST MOTORS" at the top with "Charlie Pace" and "Mark Turner" printed underneath. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. Nobody else signed the form contract, which provided, among other things: Any payment late will include a late charge of $5.00 for every three days late . . . . GULF OOAST MOTORS has full rights to repossess any vehicle with a payment three days late. If any vehicle is repossessed the buyer has up to 10 days to pay the vehicle off in full and a $100.00 repossession charge to redeem the vehicle. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. Mark Turner and C. E. Pace witnessed Mr. Allen's signature on a form warranty disclaimer, which stated, "THIS USED MOTOR VEHICLE IS SOLD AS IS WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY . . ." Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. A week and a half after he had acquired the Volkswagen, the transmission failed and Mr. Allen called for the car to be towed back to the used car lot. He asked that the car be repaired and the car was taken to a Volkswagen mechanic's shop. This shop refused to release the car to Mr. Allen without payment of the repair bill. He was refused, when he asked that his down payment be returned. Mr. Allen dealt only with Charlie Pace and Joe Smith and never spoke to the Turners. Hayes Willie Hayes, Jr. bought a car from Gulf Coast Motors in 1982 or 1983 for about $1200.00. He fell behind in his bi- weekly payments once in a while, but always let somebody know when he would be unable to make a payment. In May of 1984, when he was $60.00 or $70.00 behind, he told Mr. Pace that he would bring payments current in a week's time. He showed up at the used car lot with all but $20.00 of what he had intended to bring, but was told that he had to pay everything he still owed on the car, a balance of $420.00. Mark Turner asked him for the key to the car when it became clear that he could not pay. Mr. Hayes refused, got into his car and started to leave. Mark Turner got into another car and blocked his egress while another driver pulled another car in front of Mr. Hayes, penning his car. Eventually a Highway Patrolman arrived, wrote Mr. Hayes a ticket for having backed into the car Mr. Turner had placed in his way, determined that Mr. Turner had no judicial process authorizing repossession, and sent Mr. Hayes on his way. Motley Burtis O. Motley bought a 1980 Ford Granada from Gulf Coast Motors on October 11, 1984. He dealt with a Jerry Murph who signed an odometer mileage statement reciting that the odometer "now reads 131,527 miles . . . [and that] the odometer reading . . . reflects the actual mileage." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. In fact, however, the odometer read 131,528, understating the mileage by 99,999 miles, a point on which Mr. Motley, a retired carpenter, was confused. During negotiations he commented to the salesman, "I see the low mileage." Cataracts impair Mr. Motley's vision. He did not read the odometer mileage statement or the other documents he signed when he paid $500.00 down, traded in his old car, and undertook to retire a balance of $3206.75 with monthly payments of $70.00. He realized he was buying the car "as is," however, and signed a disclaimer to that effect. Two or three days after the purchase, Mr. Motley began having repairs done, first on the brakes: the front brakes pulled to the left and the back brakes "went haywire." Grease seals were replaced at K-Mart. New shock absorbers were needed. Mr. Motley decided that he had had enough. On the telephone he told one of the Messrs. Turner that he was going to stop making payments and that he would "turn the car in." On November 24, 1984, somebody took the car. Mr. Motley later saw it on the Gulf Coast Motors lot, but there was never any communication as to its disposition after November 24, 1984. Pugh On July 7, 1984, a Saturday, Marshall Everett Pugh bought a 1972 Toyota from David Turner purporting to act as a salesman for Gulf Coast Motors. Most of the paperwork he signed in blank but he was aware of the import of the form warranty disclaimer he signed, and acknowledged at hearing that he purchased the car "as is," after David told him that the car "ran good." At the time of the purchase he was aware that the driver's door did not open and that the ignition key was prone to stick in a way that kept the starter operating even after the engine was running. On the 9th or 10th of July, after he had taken the car to mechanics to be looked at, Mr. Pugh learned that only one cylinder was functioning properly. On July 10, 1984, he took the car back to the used car lot and asked Mark Turner where David was. Mark pointed out that Pugh had bought the car "as is," ending his remarks on an obscene note that precipitated a tussle. The fight ended with David pulling Pugh off Mark by the hair. Pugh left without the car and never heard further from the Turners or Gulf Coast Motors about the car. He had given them an erroneous address at the time of purchase and left town shortly afterward. Castello Under her then (married) name of Graves, Cathy Sheree Castello bought a 1979 Cougar from a salesman named Bill on the Gulf Coast Motors lot. He told her it was a good car. She had effected a few repairs when, two weeks after the purchase, she was told that the car needed a new engine, because the one it had was "totally blown." The car would only go about 30 miles per hour. She, too, had signed an "as is" warranty disclaimer. Ms. Castello returned the car to the lot where it was offered for sale while she and the used car lot personnel tried to reach a settlement. Without notice to her, the car was sold and somebody forged her stepfather's signature in transferring title to the new buyer. Before the final hearing in this case, she had settled her claim against respondents amicably.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be assessed sales and use tax by Respondent, and if so, how much and what penalty, if any, should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Aircraft Trading Center, Inc. (Petitioner), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal office at 17885 S.E. Federal Highway, Tequesta, Florida. Petitioner is engaged in the business of purchasing aircraft for resale. During all times material hereto, Petitioner was registered as an aircraft dealer with the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and registered as a retail dealer with the State of Florida, Department of Revenue (Respondent). The selling price of Petitioner's aircraft range from one million to twenty-five million dollars and helicopters from two hundred thousand to three million dollars. Normally, Petitioner purchases an aircraft, without having a confirmed buyer. Petitioner purchases an aircraft based upon in-house research which shows a likelihood that the aircraft can be resold at a profit. Petitioner's aircraft is demonstrated to potential buyers/customers. The customers require a demonstration to determine if the aircraft meets the particular needs of the customer. The demonstration could take one day or as long as two weeks. During the demonstration, the customer pays the expenses associated with flying the aircraft. Petitioner uses two methods to determine the costs of demonstration. In one method, the cost is determined from a reference source utilized in the industry to show the cost of operating a particular type of aircraft. In the other method, the customer pays Petitioner's actual out-of- pocket cost. No matter which method is used, the charges to the customers are listed as income on Petitioner's bookkeeping books and records, per the advice of Petitioner's certified public accounting (CPA) firm. Petitioner remains the owner of the aircraft during the demonstration and until the sale. Also, during demonstration, Petitioner maintains insurance coverage on the aircraft and is the loss payee. In an attempt to make sure "legitimate" customers are engaged in the demonstrations, Petitioner screens potential buyers to make sure that they have the resources to purchase one of Petitioner's aircraft. For sales to buyers/customers residing out-of-state, Petitioner utilizes a specific, but standard procedure. Such customers are provided a copy of the Florida Statute dealing with exempting the sale from Florida's sales tax if the aircraft is removed from the State of Florida within ten (10) days from the date of purchase. Florida sales tax is not collected from the buyer if the buyer executes an affidavit which states that the buyer has read the Florida Statute and that the buyer will remove the plane from Florida within ten (10) days after the sale or the completion of repairs and if the bill of sale shows an out-of-state address for the buyer. When an aircraft is sold, Petitioner's standard procedure is to prepare a purchase agreement and after receiving payment, Petitioner prepares a bill of sale. Petitioner sends the bill of sale to a title company in Oklahoma which handles all of Petitioner's title transfers. The title company records the bill of sale, registers the change of title with the FAA and sends Petitioner a copy of the title. For all sale transactions, Petitioner maintains a file which includes the affidavit, the bill of sale, and a copy of the title. Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner for the period 2/1/87- 1/31/92 to determine if sales and use tax should be assessed against Petitioner. All records were provided by Petitioner. The audit resulted in an assessment of sales and use tax, penalty, and interest against Petitioner. Respondent assessed tax on the sale of a helicopter and on certain charges made by Petitioner to its customers as a result of demonstrations. Regarding the helicopter, Respondent assessed tax in the amount of $18,000.00 for the helicopter transaction. By invoice dated 7/10/89, Petitioner sold the helicopter to Outerscope, Inc., for $300,000.00. Outerscope was an out-of-state company. Petitioner used its standard procedure for the sale of aircraft and sales to nonresidents. Petitioner did not obtain proof that the helicopter was removed from the State of Florida, and Petitioner has no knowledge as to whether it was removed. As to the charges by Petitioner for demonstrations, Respondent assessed tax in the amount of $72,488.55. Respondent determined the tax by taking an amount equal to 1 percent of the listed value of the aircraft demonstrated and multiplying that number by 6 percent, the use tax rate. Respondent relied upon the records and representations provided by Petitioner's bookkeeper as to determining which aircraft were demonstrated, the value of the aircraft and the months in which the aircraft were demonstrated. Several transactions originally designated as demonstrations have been now determined by Petitioner's bookkeeper not to be demonstrations: The February 4, 1987 transaction with Ray Floyd. The July 10, 1988 transaction involving Trans Aircraft. The May 2 and 12, 1989 items for Stalupi/Bandit. The July 12, 1989 item involving Bond Corp. The July 18, 1989 item involving Seardel. The November 28, 1990 item involving J. P. Foods Service. Petitioner's CPA firm advises it regarding Florida's sales and use tax laws. At no time did the CPA firm advise Petitioner that its (Petitioner's) demonstrations were subject to sales and use tax and that it (Petitioner) was required to obtain proof that an aircraft had been removed from the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order assessing sales and use tax for the period 2/1/87 - 1/31/92 against Aircraft Trading Center, Inc., consistent herewith. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of July 1995. ERROL H. POWELL 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 1995. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Rejected as subordinate. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 14. Rejected as subordinate. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 9. 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 16. Respondent Partially accepted in findings of fact 11 and 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Also, see Conclusion of Law 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 7 and 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 13-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert O. Rogers, Esquire Rogers, Bowers, Dempsey & Paladeno 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1330 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Lealand L. McCharen Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Petitioner purchased a used car in Florida in May of 1983 and paid 5 percent sales tax. Petitioner did not title said car in the State of Florida. When Petitioner returned to Maryland, his state of residence, Maryland imposed a 5 percent tax on said car when Petitioner titled said car. Petitioner applied for a sales tax refund to the Department of Revenue in the amount of $225.00. Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to deny said refund application on December 1, 1983. From the exhibits to which the parties stipulated, additional facts are found by the Hearing Officer. A bill of sale indicates that Petitioner purchased a 1979 Buick Regal from Eddy Auto Sales on May 14, 1983. A temporary registration and receipt issued by the State of Maryland on June 17, 1983, shows that Petitioner paid a "title tax" of $222.50 to the State of Maryland. By letter dated January 27, 1984, Agnes Stoicos of the Maryland Department of Transportation indicates that the Maryland tax is a 5 percent excise tax upon the issuance of all original and subsequent certificates of title, and the tax is used primarily for the construction and the maintenance of the Maryland highway system.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 18-4475RX, whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.044(5)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.1/ As to DOAH Case No. 18-4992RU, whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") Standard Audit Plan, Vending and Amusement Machines--Industry Specific, section 1.1.3.3 ("SAP") is an unadopted rule in violation of sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Audit Period GBR is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. Gilda Rosenberg is the owner of GBR and a related entity, Gilly Vending, Inc. ("Gilly"). GBR and Gilly are in the vending machine business. At all times material hereto, Amit Biegun served as the chief financial officer of the two entities. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. This case concerns the audit period of January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. GBR's Provision of Vending Machine Services Prior to the audit period, the school boards of Broward and Palm Beach County issued written solicitations through invitations to bid ("ITB"), seeking vendors to furnish, install, stock, and maintain vending machines on school property. The bids required a "full turn-key operation." The stated objectives were to obtain the best vending service and percentage commission rates that will be most advantageous to the school boards, and to provide a contract that will be most profitable to the awarded vendor. The stated goal was that student choices from beverage and snack vending machines closely align with federal dietary guidelines. GBR operates approximately 700 snack and beverage vending machines situated at 65 schools in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties. Of these 65 schools, 43 are in Broward County, 21 are in Palm Beach County, and one is in Miami-Dade County. The snack vending machines are all owned by GBR. Beverage vending machines are owned by bottling companies, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Of the 700 vending machines, approximately 60 percent of the machines are for beverages and the remaining 40 percent are for snacks. GBR has written vending agreements with some schools. In these agreements, GBR is designated as a licensee, the school is designated as the licensor, and GBR is granted a license to install vending machines on school property in exchange for a commission. Furthermore, GBR is solely responsible to pay all federal, state, and local taxes in connection with the operation of the vending machines. Ownership of the vending machines does not transfer to the schools. However, in some cases the schools have keys to the machines. In addition, designated school board employees have access to the inside of the machines in order to review the meter, monitor all transactions, and reconcile the revenue from the machines. GBR places the vending machines on school property. However, the schools control the locations of the vending machines. The schools also require timers on the machines so that the schools can control the times during the day when the machines are operational and accessible to students. The schools also control the types of products to be placed in the machines to ensure that the products closely align with the federal dietary guidelines. The schools also control pricing strategies. GBR stocks, maintains, and services the vending machines. However, Coca-Cola and Pepsi may repair the beverage machines they own. GBR is solely responsible for repairing the machines it owns. The schools require that any vendor service workers seeking access to the vending machines during school hours pass background checks. GBR route drivers collect the revenue from all of the vending machines and the revenues are deposited into GBR's bank accounts. In exchange for GBR's services, the schools receive from GBR, as a commission, a percentage of the gross receipts. However, neither GBR nor the schools are guaranteed any revenue unless sales occur from the machines. On its federal income tax returns, GBR reports all sales revenue from the vending machines. For the tax year 2012, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $5,952,270. Of this amount, GBR paid the schools $1,363,207, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2013, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,535,362. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,122,211, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2014, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,076,255. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,279,682, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. Thus, for the audit period, and according to the federal tax returns and general ledgers, GBR's gross receipts or sales were $18,563,887. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $3,765,100, as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. The Department's Audit and Assessment On January 27, 2015, the Department, through its tax auditor, Mary Gray, sent written notice to GBR of its intent to conduct the audit. This was Ms. Gray's first audit involving vending machines at schools. Thereafter, GBR provided Ms. Gray with its general ledger, federal returns, and bid documents. On October 28, 2015, Ms. Gray issued a draft assessment to GBR. The email transmittal by Ms. Gray to GBR's representative states that "[t]he case is being forwarded for supervisory review." In the draft, Ms. Gray determined that GBR owed additional tax in the amount of $28,589.65, but there was no mention of any purported tax on the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. However, very close to the end of the audit, within one week after issuing the draft, and after Ms. Gray did further research and conferred with her supervisor, Ms. Gray's supervisor advised her to issue the B03 assessment pursuant to section 212.031 and rule 12A-1.044, and tax the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. Thus, according to the Department, GBR was now responsible for tax in the amount of $246,230.93, plus applicable interest. Of this alleged amount, $1,218.48 was for additional sales tax (A01); $4,181.41 was for purchase expenses (B02); $13,790 was for untaxed rent (B02); and $227.041.04 was for the purported license to use real property (B03). Ms. Gray then prepared a Standard Audit Report detailing her position of the audit and forwarded the report to the Department's dispute resolution division. On January 19, 2016, the Department issued the Notice of Proposed Assessment ("NOPA") against GBR for additional tax and interest due of $288,993.31. The Department does not seek a penalty against GBR. At hearing, Ms. Gray testified that the Department's SAP is an audit planning tool or checklist which she used in conducting GBR's audit. Employees of the Department are not bound to follow the SAP, and the SAP can be modified by the auditors on a word document. The SAP was utilized by Ms. Gray during the audit, but it was not relied on in the NOD.4/
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Errol H. Powell an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the Petitioner’s Joint Notice of Dismissal and Withdrawal of Notice of Termination, copies of which are attached and incorporated by reference in this order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this alo day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Filed in the official records of the Division of Motorist Services this A \g day of June, Bureau of Issuance Oversight 2014. Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles . 4 fe. vars sas Malin: Vrragele Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Nalini Vinayak, Dealer License Administrator Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Copies furnished to: Filed June 27, 2014 10:27 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section R. Craig Spickard Kurkin Brandes LLP 105 West 5th Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 cspickard@kb-attorneys.com John J. Sullivan Hogan Lovells US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 John.sullivan@hoganlovells.com J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Andy.bertron@nelsonmullins.com Errol H. Powell Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review. one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Issue Whether petitioner taxpayer is liable for delinquent sales tax, penalties, and interest under Chapter 212, Florida Stat utes, as alleged by respondent Department in its notice of proposed assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Taxpayer Taxpayer is a family-operated Florida corporation which has engaged in retail sales at the Tampa Port Authority since 1975 or 1976; it is a licensed dealer registered with the Department. (Testimony of Roberts, Marylis.) Taxpayer's Sales During Audit Period From June 1, 1977, through July 31, 1980 (the audit period covered by the Department's proposed assessment), Taxpayer had gross sales in the approximate amount of $691,013.46. (Testimony of Roberts; Exhibit 2.) During that period, Taxpayer filed the required DR-15 monthly sales tax reports and paid taxes on all retail sales transactions which took place on the premises of its store located at 804 Robinson Street, (Tampa Port Authority) Tampa, Florida. (Testimony of Roberts.) During the same audit period -- in addition to sales on its store premises -- Taxpayer sold goods to merchant seamen on board foreign vessels temporarily docked at the Port of Tampa. These vessels operated in foreign commerce, entering the port from and returning to international waters outside the territorial limits of the United States. Taxpayer did not report these sales on its monthly sales tax reports; neither did it charge or collect sales tax from the on-board purchasers. (Testimony of Marylis.) Taxpayer failed to charge or collect sales tax in connection with its on-board sales because it relied on what it had been told by Department representatives. Prior to forming Taxpayer's corporation Thomas Marylis went to the local Department office to obtain a dealer's certificate. While there, he asked Manuel Alvarez, Jr., then the Department's regional audit supervisor, whether he was required to collect sales tax on ship-board sales. Alvarez replied that he didn't have to collect sales taxes on sales made to seamen when he delivered the goods to the ship. 1/ (Testimony of Marylis.) The on-board sales transactions took place in the following manner: Taxpayer (through its owner, Thomas Marylis) would board the foreign vessel and accept orders from the captain, chief mate, or chief steward. (Earlier, one of these persons would have taken orders from the rest of the crew.) If individual crewmen tried to place orders, Marylis would refer them to the captain, chief mate, or chief steward. After receiving orders from one of these three persons, Marylis would return to Taxpayer's store, fill the order, and transport the goods back to the vessel. Whoever placed the order would then examine the goods and give Marylis the money /2 collected from the crew. (Testimony of Roberts, Marylis.) The goods sold in this manner were ordinarily for the personal use of individual crew members; typical items were: shoes, underwear, working clothes, small radios, watches, suitcases, soap, paper towels, and other personal care products. (Testimony of Marylis.) Department Audit of Taxpayer In 1980, the Department audited Taxpayer's corporate books to determine if sales tax had been properly collected and paid. Taxpayer could produce no dock or warehouse receipts, bills of lading, resale certificates from other licensed dealers, or affidavits verifying that its on-board sales were made to out-of-state purchasers for transportation outside of Florida. (Testimony of Roberts, Marylis.) Due to Taxpayer's failure to supply documentation demonstrating that its ship-board sales from June 1, 1977, to July 31, 1980, were exempt from sales tax imposed by Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, the Department issued a proposed assessment on September 23, 1980. Through that assessment, the Department seeks to collect $21,201.01 in delinquent sales tax, $5,131.39 in penalties, and $3,892.18 in interest (in addition to interest at 12 percent per annum, or $6.97 per day, accruing until date of payment). (Exhibit 5.) Informal Conference with Department; Alvarez's Representations to Taxpayer In October 1980 -- after the audit -- Taxpayer (through Marylis) informally met with Manuel Alvarez, the Department's regional audit supervisor, to discuss the tax status of the shipboard sales. Specifically, they discussed the Department auditor's inability to confirm that Taxpayer delivered the items to the ships, as opposed to the buyers picking up the goods at the store. Alvarez told him: [I]f the buyers would come and just pick them up and take them. And I [Alvarez] think I told him that, if that was the case, it was taxable. But, if they just placed their orders there -- like we have had other ship supplies -- and they them- selves, or one of their employees, would take the items aboard ships, that would be an exempt sale. I did make that state ment. If we had any type of confirmation to that effect, when it comes to that. (Tr. 61.) 3/ (Testimony of Alvarez.) Alvarez then told Marylis to obtain documentation or verification that the sales were made on foreign vessels, i.e., proof that Taxpayer delivered the goods to the vessels. He assured Marylis that if he could bring such verification back, such sales "would come off the audit." (Tr. 62.)(Testimony of Alvarez.) Alvarez was an experienced Department employee: he retired in 1980, after 30 years of service. It was Alvarez's standard practice -- when dealing with sales tax exemption questions -- to reiterate the importance of documentation. He would always give the taxpayer an opportunity -- 30 days or more -- to obtain documentation that a sale was exempt from taxation. (Testimony of Alvarez.) Taxpayer's Verification In response to the opportunity provided by Alvarez, Taxpayer (through Marylis) obtained affidavits from numerous captains of foreign vessels and shipping agents. Those affidavits read, in pertinent part: I, [name inserted] , am the Captain aboard the vessel [name inserted] from [place of origin]. I am personally aware that Speros International Ship Supply Co., Inc. sells various commodities, supplies, clothing, and various sundry items to for eign ship personnel by delivering the said items to the ships docked at various termi- nals inside the Tampa Port Authority and other locations in Tampa, Florida from [date] to the present. (Testimony of Marylis; Exhibit 8.) Moreover, in an attempt to comply with the tax law and avoid similar problems in the future, Taxpayer printed receipt books to be used in all future on-board sales. The receipts reflect the type of goods sold, the date of delivery to the vessel, the foreign vessel's destination, and the total purchase price. Also included is a signature line for the individual who delivers and receives the goods. (Testimony of Marylis; Exhibit 7.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Department's proposed assessment of Taxpayer for delinquent sales tax, penalties, and interest, be issued as final agency action. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1982.
