Findings Of Fact Respondent issued a Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings against Jesus Abauza, also known as Jesus I. Valdez, on May 16, 1989, (the "assessment"). The assessment was made for the tax imposed on the unlawful transportation of approximately 90 kilograms of cocaine. The tax base in the assessment is the retail value of the cocaine. The retail value of the cocaine was estimated in the amount of $1,341,000 by multiplying the weight of the cocaine by the retail price listed in the Florida Department Of Law Enforcement ("FDLE") memorandum in effect at the time for Broward and Dade counties. The price per kilogram listed in the FDLE memorandum was $14,900. The FDLE memorandum became effective on May 4, 1988, and was the current price list used by the FDLE on May 8, 1989, when Petitioner was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance. Tax was assessed against the tax base at the rate of 50 percent and in the amount of $670,500. A 25 percent surcharge was assessed in the amount of $335,250. The total tax assessed in the amount of $1,005,750 is the sum of the amount of tax due at the rate of 50 percent and the amount of tax due for the 25 percent surcharge. An additional 50 percent penalty was assessed in the amount of $502,875. The total tax and penalty assessed in the amount of $1,508,635 is the sum of the tax due ($1,005,750) and the penalty ($502,875). A Warrant For Collection Of Delinquent Sales and Use Tax (the "warrant") and a Corrected Warrant (the "corrected warrant") was issued against Petitioner on the same day as the assessment. The warrant and corrected warrant are identical except for the addition of Petitioner's social security number in the the top right corner of the corrected warrant and a note in the right margin of the corrected warrant stating: This CORRECTED WARRANT is being re-recorded to reflect the correct amount of tax lien as being $1,005,750.00. Interest will accrue at the rate of $330.66 per day beginning 6/2/89 thru date of satisfaction of lien. 11/26/91[.] The amount stated in the assessment, warrant, and corrected warrant as the tax due is $1,005,750. The amount stated as the penalty due in all three documents is $502,875. The amount stated as the total and grand total due in all three documents is $1,508,625. The note in the right margin of the corrected warrant, however, eliminates the 50 percent penalty by stating that the corrected amount of the "tax lien" is $1,005,750. Interest accrues on the tax due at the rate of one percent per month. The amount stated in the bottom left corner of the assessment, warrant, and corrected warrant, as the "Daily Interest Rate" is $329.86. The correct per diem amount of interest is $330.66. 5/ Interest begins accruing on the 21st day of the month following the month for which the tax is due.6 The tax was initially due in May, 1989, when the assessment was issued. Although the corrected warrant states that interest accrues from "6/2/89", interest actually began accruing on June 21, 1989. The assessment was mailed to Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. Petitioner received the assessment, but the date of receipt cannot be determined from the evidence of record. 7/ Petitioner unlawfully transported approximately 90 kilograms of cocaine. Petitioner was arrested by officers in the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department (the "Police Department") on May 8, 1989, and charged with possession of cocaine. In the criminal case against him, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized by the Police Department based upon the alleged illegality of the police officer's investigatory stop of the car Petitioner was driving. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Petitioner successfully appealed the trial court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. The district court's denial of the motion to suppress was reversed in United States v. Valdez, 931 F.2d 1448 (11th Cir. May 22, 1991), and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The district court granted the motion to suppress and scheduled the criminal case for trial during the two week period beginning September 23, 1991. 8/ Petitioner stipulated in the Supplemental Pretrial Stipulation that he did not admit or stipulate that any of the matters set forth in the stipulation were factually correct. The findings of fact made in this Recommended Order, however, are substantially the same as the factual account contained in the official transcript of the criminal proceedings and reported by the appellate court in Valdez as the basis for its reversal of the trial court's denial of Petitioner's motion to suppress. On the afternoon of May 8, 1989, Detective Jerry Houck and Special Agent Steven Hills were conducting the surveillance of a residence (the "residence" or "house") located in Miami, Florida from an unmarked police car. Detective Houck and Special Agent Hills were part of a Police Department narcotics investigative team led by Detective Francisco Trujillo. Detective Trujillo was not personally present at the residence but monitored the events which occurred at the residence over the police radio in his unmarked vehicle. Detective Trujillo was assisted by Officer Douglas Almaguer, a uniformed police officer for the Police Department who was in a marked patrol car. Detective Houck observed a Honda Accord automobile (the "Honda") driven by Petitioner stop in front of the residence. Petitioner got out of the car, knocked on the front door of the house, and entered the residence. Detective Houck was unable to observe the events which took place inside the house. While Petitioner remained inside the house, two men later identified as Jose and Jorge Fernandez came out of the residence. They moved two cars parked in the yard and positioned the Honda so that its trunk was in close proximity to the front door of the residence. Jose and Jorge Fernandez opened the trunk of the Honda, reentered the residence, and reappeared within the next few minutes outside the house carrying plastic garbage bags which appeared to Detective Houck to be fairly heavy. The two men placed the garbage bags with their contents in the trunk of the Honda. They reentered the residence and quickly reappeared carrying additional bags which they also placed in the trunk of the Honda. Shortly thereafter, Valdez came out of the residence, got into the Honda, and drove away. Detective Trujillo advised Officer Almaguer that: [W]e were conducting an investigation and we had a vehicle we wished for him to follow, and if that person was to commit a traffic infraction which he normally cites somebody for, we wished for him to stop the vehicle. If that occurred, and he did stop the vehicle, I wanted him to ask the occupant of the vehicle for consent to search the vehicle, and I instructed him to ask if he would consent to a search. Officer Almaguer did not recall that he had been directed by Detective Trujillo to stop the Honda only for something which constituted the kind of traffic offense for which he would ordinarily stop a driver. Over the police radio, Detective Houck provided Detective Trujillo with the description and tag number of the Honda and notified Detective Trujillo when Petitioner drove away from the house. Detective Houck left his surveillance position at the residence and followed the Honda to 122nd Avenue. At that point, Detective Trujillo identified the Honda and Detective Houck confirmed the identification. As Petitioner approached the intersection of 8th Street and 122nd Avenue, Detective Trujillo was positioned across the intersection. Officer Almaguer was directly behind Detective Trujillo in his marked patrol car. Petitioner made a right turn against a red traffic light signal and violated the right-of-way of a vehicle approaching through the green traffic light signal. The approaching vehicle slowed abruptly in order to avoid a collision with Petitioner's Honda. Neither Detective Trujillo nor Officer Almaguer were able to state the speed at which the approaching vehicle was traveling before it slowed down, and neither officer heard any screeching of the tires of the approaching vehicle. Detective Trujillo advised Officer Almaguer that Petitioner was the subject of the narcotics investigation. Officer Almaguer followed the Honda for 18 blocks from the intersection where the traffic violation had occurred and then stopped Petitioner. Detective Trujillo parked two blocks away from the point of the stop and observed Officer Almaguer conduct the stop. Officer Almaguer approached Petitioner and asked for Petitioner's driver's license and registration. Petitioner produced his driver's license but stated that the car was loaned to him by a friend. Officer Almaguer asked Petitioner if Petitioner knew why he had been stopped. Petitioner answered "yes." Officer Almaguer requested permission to search the car, and Petitioner consented. Officer Almaguer found five sealed trash bags inside the trunk of the Honda. Officer Almaguer asked Petitioner what was inside the bags. Petitioner replied that it was cocaine. Officer Almaguer arrested Petitioner, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car until Detective Trujillo arrived at the point of the stop. Officer Almaguer issued Petitioner a citation for violation of the right-of-way. Detective Trujillo then advised Petitioner of his Miranda rights. Officer Almaguer's stop of Petitioner's vehicle was unreasonably pretextual, and Petitioner's consent to search was not voluntarily given. Officer Almaguer would not have pursued Petitioner's Honda, stopped it, and issued a traffic citation, but for Detective Trujillo's instructions that the Honda was the car which the narcotics investigation team wanted stopped. Officer Almaguer ordinarily did not search a vehicle for a violation of right-of-way, or even ask its driver for consent to search the vehicle. Officer Almaguer had no reason to ask for permission to search the vehicle based solely on the traffic violation he observed. Petitioner's consent to the search was tainted by the illegal, pretextual stop and detention. The contents of the five bags seized by the Police Department when Petitioner was arrested were tested by a chemist for the Police Department. The contents of the five bags weighed approximately 90 kilograms. Samples of each kilogram from the bags were tested and found to contain cocaine. The percentage of cocaine and purity of the cocaine was not determined.
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 in the amount determined by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. 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 24th day of February, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for the sales and use tax assessment issued by Respondent on February 21, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), has issued a proposed sales and use tax assessment in the amount of $24,546.54, plus $6,640.12 in penalties, plus interest from the date of the assessment, against Petitioner, Florida Truck Dock Company (Petitioner or taxpayer). As of March 20, 1997, the assessment totaled $55,195.27, and it continues to increase by $8.07 each day. The assessment constitutes taxes, penalties, and interest allegedly due from Petitioner for various materials and supplies purchased by Petitioner for use in the performance of real property contracts for Petitioner's customers. In its response to the assessment, Petitioner denied that it owed the money. Petitioner's business activities consisted primarily of purchasing truck loading dock equipment from suppliers, principally Kelly Company, Inc. (Kelly), and then installing such equipment as an improvement to real estate. Its records indicate that purchased equipment was generally brought into Florida and installed in real property in the state under a contract whereby parts and labor were furnished for one lump sum contract price. The foregoing contracts were Class A or lump sum contracts within the meaning of Rule 12A-1.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Class A contracts are considered contracts for the improvement of real estate, not contracts for the resale of tangible personal property. In addition, when the equipment was purchased, Petitioner had not issued resale certificates to its vendors. Under these circumstances, Petitioner was properly treated as an end-user of the equipment in question and owed use taxes on all such purchases of tangible personal property. This controversy began on March 30, 1992, when DOR issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records of the taxpayer in conjunction with a routine audit. The notice requested that Petitioner make available various corporate records pertaining to its sales and use tax and intangible tax liability. However, only the sales and use tax is in issue here. DOR later advised the taxpayer that the audit period would run from March 1, 1987, through February 29, 1992, and that instead of a detailed audit, only a three-month sampling of the full audit period would be necessary. An initial audit revealed that Petitioner was entitled to a refund. None was given, however, because of information supplied by an employee of the taxpayer regarding the possible destruction and alteration of certain records by the taxpayer, and the auditor's conclusion that a three-month sampling of the records was not representative for the full five-year audit period. In addition, the auditor concluded that the results of the sample period were not reasonable. For these reasons, the scope of the audit was expanded. The auditor then requested, among other things, that copies of all sales (summary) journals for the entire five-year period be produced. Although Petitioner has always contended that these journals were merely "commission" journals for transactions between its vendors and customers, the auditor's finding that they are records of cash transactions is consistent with the language on the face of the journals, referring to "deposits" and "total deposits." Further, a comparison of the journals with Petitioner's own bank statements confirms this finding. At least twelve months of the records were missing, and the taxpayer agreed to recreate the missing records. Once a copy of all journals (both original and recreated) was produced, the auditor tested their validity and then made various audit adjustments, which are reflected on Schedule A-2 of Exhibit 5. In those instances where inadequate cost price information concerning equipment purchases was provided by the taxpayer, the auditor properly used estimates in making his adjustments. The tax liability for each taxable transaction was recorded by the taxpayer under Account 367 on the sales journals. The auditor then examined the source documents (original invoices) to verify the accuracy of the recorded amounts. These numbers were then compared with the taxes paid by the taxpayer on its monthly tax returns filed with DOR. This comparison produced a deficiency which represents approximately 75 percent of the total assessment. However, in those instances where Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers, and remitted the same to DOR, Petitioner was not assessed with a tax for those same items. A sampling of the audit period established that Petitioner also had a number of lump-sum contracts with various governmental customers on which it neither paid taxes to the vendor when the equipment was purchased, nor did it collect taxes from the end-user when the equipment was resold. Thus, it was responsible for the use taxes on these transactions. The deficiency is detailed on Schedule B-3 of the final audit report (Exhibit 6), and it accounts for approximately 14 percent of the total assessment. The remaining part of the assessment is related to four miscellaneous transactions which are unrelated to the sales journals. Two of the transactions occurred during the short period of time when the service tax was in effect in 1987, while the remaining two relate to small purchases of equipment and supplies by the taxpayer for its own consumption. There was no evidence that the taxpayer paid the taxes due on these transactions. DOR met with the taxpayer, its accountant, and its original counsel on various occasions in an effort to obtain more documentation favorable to the taxpayer's position. In most cases, the taxpayer refused to provide more records. At one meeting, however, the taxpayer produced additional source documents (invoices) that appeared to be altered from the original invoices previously given to the auditor. These are shown in Exhibit 7 received in evidence. When asked by the auditor for copies of the same invoices sent to customers so that the discrepancy could be resolved, the taxpayer refused to comply with this request. During the audit process, the taxpayer contended that its primary supplier, Kelly, had already paid taxes on a number of the transactions. No documentation was produced, however, to support this contention. It also complained that there was bias on the part of DOR's auditor. As to this contention, the record shows that the auditor had no relationship with the taxpayer prior to this audit, and for the intangible personal property tax, the auditor's field work actually resulted in a refund for Petitioner. Finally, the taxpayer contended that rather than using the originally supplied records, the auditor should have used Petitioner's recreated or altered records in making the audit adjustments. This latter contention has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining its original assessment against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Benjamin K. Phipps, Esquire Post Office Box 1351 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 L. H. Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Revenue (the "Department") may revoke the Certificate of Registration issued to Petitioner for failure to post a $10,000 cash deposit, surety bond, or irrevocable letter of credit.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency of the state of Florida charged with the duty to enforce the collection of taxes imposed pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes, to issue warrants for the collection of taxes, interest, and penalties and, where necessary, to require a cash deposit, bond, or other security, as a condition to a person obtaining or retaining a dealer‘s certificate of registration under chapter 212. Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its principal and mailing address at 5800 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. Petitioner is a "dealer" as defined in section 212.06(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner holds Dealer's Certificate of Registration No. 26-8015523525-2. As a dealer, Petitioner was required to collect sales and use taxes from customers and to submit monthly tax returns and collected taxes to the Department. Sales and use taxes for any given month are due on the first day of the succeeding month, and must be paid to the Department on or before the 20th day of that succeeding month. Petitioner failed to file the required sales and use tax returns for January through March 2011. In a delinquent tax warrant dated May 18, 2011, the Department assessed Petitioner estimated tax of $3,000 for the three months in question, along with $32.79 in interest, $300.00 in penalties, and fees in the amount of $20.00, for a total of $3,352.79. The Department estimated the tax due for the months of January through March 2011 based on historical data, i.e., Petitioner's previous sales and use tax returns. The Department issued the Notice on May 18, 2011. The Notice was served on Petitioner on May 20, 2011. The Notice required Petitioner to post a $10,000 cash deposit, surety bond, or irrevocable letter of credit as a condition to retaining its Certificate of Registration. The Notice further advised Petitioner of an informal conference, commonly referenced as a "bond hearing," to be conducted on June 21, 2011, for the purpose of affording the Petitioner an opportunity to resolve the delinquent tax issue. The Notice also stated as follows, in relevant part: This Notice of Intent to Revoke Registration will become final on the date of the informal conference if the required security has not been posted, or an agreement is not reached at the informal conference, or you fail to attend the informal conference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order that declines to revoke Dealer's Certificate of Registration No. 26-8015523525-2 held by Jacksonville Entertainment Company, LLC, until such time as the Department fully complies with the requirements of subsection 212.18(3)(d), Florida Statutes by issuing an Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Marshall Stranburg, Esquire Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Revenue Litigation Bureau Tallahassee, Florida 32399 carrol.cherry@myfloridalegal.com Bechara Richa Jacksonville Entertainment Company, LLC 8474 Papelon Way Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Nancy Terrel, Acting General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
Findings Of Fact In 1972 Petitioner received $743,982 of income from state and municipal bonds. On its federal income tax return the Petitioner allocated $471,229 of this amount to the policyholders' share as required by law and $272,753 to the company's share (Phase I). The Phase II figures were $359,669 and $384,313 respectively. Respondent has added back the entire $743,982 for purposes of computing Petitioner's Florida taxable income. Petitioner added back the $272,753 (Phase I) and $384,313 (Phase II). For 1972 Petitioner accrued $350,000 of Florida taxes on its federal income tax return. In computing its deductions on its federal income tax return 36.6612 percent of this amount was deducted in the Phase I computation and 51.6564 percent in the Phase II computation. Respondent has added back all of the Florida tax accrued in computing the Florida income tax owed by Petitioner. Petitioner's position is that only the company's percentages were deductible and only these amounts should be added back. The amount of additional Florida income tax assessment proposed for 1972 by the Respondent over that paid by Petitioner is $21,234. In 1973 Petitioner received $552,408 of income from state and municipal bonds. On its federal income tax return Petitioner allocated $335,662 of this amount to policyholders' share as required by law and $216,786 to the company's share (Phase I). The Phase II figures were $248,789 and $303,619 respectively. Respondent has added back the entire $552,408 for purposes of computing Petitioner's taxable income. Petitioner added back the $216,786 (Phase I) and $303,619 (Phase II). For 1973 Petitioner accrued $475,000 of Florida taxes on its federal income tax return. In computing its deductions on its federal income tax return 39.2438 percent of this amount was deductible in Phase I and 54.9628 percent in Phase II. Respondent has added back all of the Florida tax accrued. Petitioner's position is that only the company's percentages were deductible and only these amounts should be added back. The amount of additional Florida income tax assessment proposed for 1973 by Respondent was $20,184. It was further stipulated that the sole issues here involved are: The computation of the amount of tax exempt interest which is excludable from taxable income under section 103(a) Internal Revenue Code for purposes of the Florida corporate income tax; and The computation of the amount of Florida income tax accrued which is deductible for purposes of federal income tax and added back for purposes of computing the Florida income tax.
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 The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Ronald M. Shultz, violated section 473.323(1)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes (2014), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61H1-23.002(1)(a) and (b), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence and the witness testimony presented, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are found: The Florida Board of Accountancy is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of certified public accounting pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 473, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Ronald M. Shultz, is a certified public accountant (CPA) licensed in the state of Florida. Respondent has been licensed since 1997 and holds license number AC 003065. His license is currently active, and he has no history of discipline by the Board. Respondent’s address of record is 1031 Northwest 6th Street, Suite F-2, Gainesville, Florida 32601. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the owner of a CPA firm in the state of Florida, i.e., Ronald M. Shultz, CPA, PA. The firm’s license was first issued in May of 2006, and is also in active status. Respondent is the president and sole shareholder for his firm. While he employed others who worked in the firm, Respondent is ultimately responsible for all aspects of business conducted by the firm. Ronald M. Shultz, CPA, PA, is in the business of providing tax services to clients, including the preparation of federal income tax returns. The normal procedure employed in Respondent’s office required that, once a client’s tax return had been prepared, the client was called to come in and receive a copy of the return for review. The client also was given a copy of an IRS E-File signature authorization form (Form 8879), although the evidence was unclear as to when the form was given to the client. In any event, the client was usually told to review the return, and then a meeting would be scheduled to go over the return, especially in those cases where the return was complex or had a lot of “moving parts.” Once the client had an opportunity to review the return and discuss it with Respondent, the client would provide a signed copy of Form 8879 and Respondent’s firm’s personnel would electronically file the return. No return is supposed to be filed without a signed Form 8879. During the period giving rise to these proceedings, Respondent had a part-time employee named Jeff Gruver, and a former IRS-enrolled agent named Jeff Conklin. Mr. Gruver usually answered the phones, took messages, provided copies of returns to clients, and, once things were finalized with a return, electronically filed returns as directed. Mr. Gruver could answer simple tax-related questions such as, “the return indicates you are getting a refund of this amount,” or the return shows that you need to pay this much in taxes.” Any more complicated questions were fielded by Mr. Conklin, or if necessary, Mr. Shultz. Mr. Conklin is someone with whom Mr. Shultz had worked previously, and actually prepared tax returns for the firm. Mr. Shultz would generally review his work, and would go over the return with the client. During this time period, Respondent relied on Mr. Conklin to a greater extent than was his normal practice. Mr. Shultz was in the midst of a protracted divorce, and helping with the care of his father, who was in declining health. William and Jo Lee Beaty were clients of Respondent, and had been clients for several years. Respondent’s office prepared their federal income taxes since at least 2009. The Beatys’ tax return generally has a lot of “moving parts.” They typically request an extension of time for filing, and bring their paperwork to Respondent’s office early in October, in order to have the return prepared by the October 15 deadline. Normally, the Beatys will owe additional taxes. They generally reviewed the return with Mr. Shultz, signed the Form 8879, and provided a check to send to the IRS when the return was filed. In 2014, Mr. Beaty took the documents necessary for the preparation of the Beatys’ 2013 tax return to Respondent’s office. Mr. Beaty acknowledged that he often delivered the documentation very late in the process–-often just days before the October 15 deadline--but thought that this year, he had delivered it as much as six weeks before. The complaint the Beatys filed with the Department indicates that the documents were delivered on or about October 1. While Respondent had no direct knowledge of when the documents were delivered to the office, he testified that his office records indicated that it was no earlier than October 1.1/ After consideration of all of the evidence, the documents were delivered most likely sometime in very late September or on October 1, 2014. Respondent directed Jeff Conklin to prepare the Beatys’ tax return. Mr. Conklin had prepared their tax return the year before. In the days immediately preceding the October deadline, Jo Lee Beaty started calling Respondent’s office to see when she and her husband would be able to review the return and determine how much money they owed in taxes. She could not reach anyone from the firm, despite repeated phone calls. Someone from Respondent’s office (presumably either Mr. Conklin or Mr. Gruver) electronically submitted the Beatys’ 2013 federal income tax return to the IRS on October 15, 2014. However, Respondent did not review the return before it was filed and the Beatys did not see it, and were not informed as to its contents. On or about November 6, 2014, Mr. Conklin notified Mr. Shultz that he was quitting his job, effective immediately. He did not notify Respondent that there were any problems with the Beatys’ tax return. Respondent was knowledgeable about the Beatys’ prior returns, and knew that the 2013 return would include a significant amount of information, including multiple Schedule Cs, Schedule K-1s, significant information regarding businesses owned by the Beatys, and property rentals. Respondent was also aware that the Beatys typically wanted to review their tax return with him prior to its filing. Not only were the Beatys unable to contact Respondent in order to schedule a meeting prior to the tax-filing deadline, but they were unable to contact him to determine whether the return was actually filed or to determine how much money was owed. Mrs. Beaty called the office the day after the deadline and no one answered. The office was actually closed that day. Mrs. Beaty made other calls to the office, although she was unable to say specifically how many times. However, when she was still unable to speak to anyone on November 13, 2014, nearly a month after the filing deadline, she made a request to the IRS to get a copy of the couple’s tax return. The IRS sent the Beatys a transcript of their filed return that same day, although it is unclear when they received it. Mrs. Beaty continued to attempt to reach Respondent, with no success. She even spoke to Respondent’s wife on the phone, and requested that she have Respondent return Mrs. Beaty’s phone calls. Respondent first learned that the Beatys were trying to reach him when his wife called him with the message from Mrs. Beaty. Respondent finally spoke to Mrs. Beaty on November 18, 2014. During this phone call, Respondent advised Mrs. Beaty that he would have their materials ready the following week. The Beatys did not receive the return or their documents as promised. On or about December 9, 2014, Mrs. Beaty sent Respondent an email requesting their return and backup materials. The email states: Ron, We were not given an opportunity to review the return with you prior to you submitting it to the IRS electronically. I called for several days prior to the final October 15th deadline to file trying to talk with you an/or [sic] Jeff. No one was available. My calls were not returned. October 14th and 15th I called more than once trying to find out what we were going to owe so that we could be prepared to include a check with the return we would need to sign and send to the IRS. Still no return phone call. Late in the day on October 15, I was assured by Jeff Gruver that the return would be filed and we would be able to take care of everything October 16th. It is nearly two months now, we have not reviewed our return with you, for accuracy, as has been the procedure in years past. We have not received the return for our signatures and instructions for submission. It is not for a lack of trying. After the filing deadline, on October 16th we began calling the office on numerous occasions to talk with you or Jeff and get our return. We left messages both with Jeff Gruver and on the various voice mailboxes to no avail. I have driven to the office only to find the man who was renting space from you there. He knew nothing of your schedule or when I might find you. He did indicate that Jeff C. now [sic] longer worked there. After calling Debra at the numbers on your sign twice you finally called. That was on or about November 18th or 19th. You told me you needed to review the return and would get it to us that week. I told you it needed to be before Friday November 21, 2014 as I was having surgery that day. You told me it would be before my surgery. We didn’t hear from you as promised. I called again the beginning of the next week (Thanksgiving week) and left a message which you returned early Tuesday afternoon I believe. You said you would get it to me later probably that day (this was a day that you had an afternoon doctor appointment). To date I have not heard from you again and had it not been for my call to the IRS I would have no proof that the return was filed nor any idea of what we owe. We are sorry to have to terminate our relationship under these circumstances. We had previously been very satisfied with your service and as you know we had referred people to you. Ron, your negligence and non-feasance comes as a great surprise. It is nonetheless inexcusable. We are contemplating reporting your inaction to the Florida DBPR. Please respond to this email and tell me what time before 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 9, 2014, so I can pick up all of the documents we gave you to prepare our 2013 tax return, and copies of all of our records. With disappointment, Jo Beaty Respondent did not respond to this email in a timely fashion and states that he did not do so because he was not checking his email regularly due to the issues with his father’s health. As a consequence, his first response to the email was dated December 22, 2014, in which he stated in part: First speaking about your federal tax return. Jeff Conklin told me your return was complete. He then told me basically he had to quit his current position with me for personal reason [sic] and simply walked out. When I went to find your file, none of your paperwork had been copied for what we call work papers . . . . Since Jeff left your file is [sic] disarray, I had to organize your paper work so that I could do an accurate review of your return. Yesterday I completed putting all of your paper work together and is now ready for my review. My plan is to complete the review tonight. And then, we can arrange a time to meet to go over your return. Despite this communication over two months after the filing of the Beatys’ tax return, they still did not receive their tax return or supporting documentation. The Beatys hand-delivered a complaint to the Department on December 22, 2014. Respondent was sent a notification letter regarding the complaint on December 29, 2014. He placed the documentation in the Beatys’ mailbox that same day. With the tax return and supporting documentation was an invoice for his services at a 50-percent discounted rate of $350. The Beatys were going to owe money, including some interest and penalties for being late, even had they paid their taxes on October 15, because payment was actually due on April 15. The IRS charges a failure to pay proper estimate penalty of $200. When taxes are paid after the due date, the IRS also charges a penalty of .5 percent of the unpaid amount due per month, up to 25 percent of the amount due. Any portion of a month is treated as a full month. On November 24, 2014, the IRS sent the Beatys a letter notifying them that they owed their taxes, including the $200 failure to pay proper estimated tax penalty; $879.08 in penalties, and $406 in interest. Some, but not all, of the penalties and interest are due to Respondent’s failure to timely provide a copy of their tax return. The Department expended $260 in costs, not including time by the legal section, in the investigation of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Board of Accountancy enter a final order finding that Respondent, Ronald M. Shultz, violated section 473.323(1)(g) and (h), and rule 61H1-23.002(1)(a) and (b). It is further recommended that Respondent’s license be reprimanded; that he be placed on probation for a period of one year, subject to conditions determined by the Board; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500 and investigative costs of $260.00 DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2016, 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 8th day of April, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is liable for corporate income and excise taxes that have been assessed by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a subsidiary of PBS Building Systems America, Inc. (PBS- A). PBS-A and Petitioner filed consolidated Florida income and excise tax returns during the time in question. During the years in question, PBS-A had no tax nexus with Florida, but incurred losses that were available to offset gross income. During the years in question, Petitioner had nexus with Florida and incurred taxable income. The filing of the consolidated return reduced the taxable income of Petitioner by the losses of PBS-A. On December 19, 1990, Respondent issued two notices of proposed assessment for years ending December 31, 1985, through March 31, 1989. One notice identifies $8273 of unpaid corporate excise tax, plus $2798 of interest through September 15, 1990. The notice states that interest would continue to accrue at the daily rate of $2.27. The second notice of proposed assessment identifies $55,480 of unpaid corporate income tax, plus $20,254 of interest through September 15, 1990. The notice states that interest continues to accrue at the daily rate of $15.20. Petitioner filed a notice of protest dated February 15, 1991. By notice of decision dated October 17, 1991, Respondent rejected the protest and sustained the proposed deficiencies. The claimed deficiency for unpaid corporate income tax, however, was revised to $75,039. A notice of reconsideration dated July 21, 1992, restates the conclusions of the notice of decision. By petition for formal hearing dated September 16, 1992, Petitioner requested a formal hearing concerning the tax liabilities in question and specifically the conclusion that PBS- A was ineligible to file a consolidated return in Florida due to the absence of tax nexus with Florida. The September 16 letter recites facts to establish tax nexus with Florida through the establishment of financing relationships. However, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of these factual assertions because they represent mere allegations. Petitioner failed to produce any evidence in the case and, when noticed for a corporate deposition, failed to appear. Additionally, Petitioner's failure to respond to requests for admission results in admissions that, during the relevant period, PBS-A was not a bank, brokerage house, or finance corporation and did not lend money to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the above-described assessments against Petitioner. ENTERED on February 12, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Attorney Lisa Raleigh Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Kathryn M. Jaques Arthur Andersen & Co. Suite 1600 701 B Street San Diego, CA 92101-8195
The Issue The issue is whether petitioner, a sales tax dealer, must pay taxes, interest and penalties for collecting sales taxes on certain nontaxable transactions and then failing to remit those funds to respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings, filings, and stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: On an undisclosed date, respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), conducted an audit of petitioner, Blackshears II Aluminum, Inc. (Blackshears), a registered sales tax dealer located in Crystal River, Florida. The audit covered the period from June 1, 1985, through March 31, 1989. As a result of that audit, on December 27, 1989, DOR issued a notice of intent to make sales and use tax audit charges. After petitioner availed itself of various informal procedures, a notice of reconsideration (notice) was issued on January 7, 1992, imposing a final assessment of $623,131.69. This action prompted Blackshears to initiate this proceeding. Although the notice addressed five issues, only issue three is relevant to this proceeding. That issue is broadly defined in the notice as "whether taxes collected on nontaxable transactions are state funds." According to the notice, the issue should be answered in the affirmative because (e)very dealer in the State of Florida is an agent for the state in that it is their responsibility to collect and remit sales tax. Blackshears collected the funds in the name of the State of Florida and has presented no refund assignments from the purchasers to permit them to apply for refunds, therefore, the State of Florida is due the funds. If the Department were to permit the use of its name to unjustly enrich Blackshears, a continuing deception would occur. The parties agree that petitioner collected sales taxes on various transactions (real property contracts) during the audit period. Whether such transactions were subject to the sales tax is in dispute, but for purposes of resolving the issue presented here, the parties have agreed that the undersigned can assume that the transactions were nontaxable. It is further agreed that even though petitioner collected the taxes from its customers, it failed to remit them to the state, and it has likewise failed to furnish proof that it refunded those moneys to its customers. Accordingly, DOR's assessment seeks to collect those taxes together with interest and substantial penalties. The parties have also agreed that the portion of the total tax assessment attributable to real property contracts is $277,406.53. As of March 29, 1993, the assessment totaled $636,570.37, after the accrual of interest and penalties. However, petitioner has paid to the state $16,180.19, for which it should receive credit. During the audit period, Rule 12A-1.014(6), Florida Administrative Code, was in effect and provided as follows: (6) Whenever a dealer credits a customer with tax on returned merchandise or for tax erroneously collected, he must refund such tax to his customer before his claim to the State for credit or refund will be approved. Under the terms of this rule, which interpreted the provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, any moneys erroneously collected by a dealer as taxes were to be remitted to the state. However, if the moneys were refunded to the customer, the dealer could then receive a refund of the moneys previously paid or a credit towards other taxes due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order granting its motion for partial summary adjudication and sustaining the assessment on issue three of its notice of reconsideration, plus interest and penalties, less those taxes already paid and identified in paragraph 2 of the parties' joint stipulation. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1993, 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 3rd day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, Esquire 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 C. Lynne Chapman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 500 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this case are what amount of federal income tax expense is properly included as an expense in Premier's excessive profits filings for the years 2005-2007, and in light of that deduction, how much Petitioner must refund as excessive profits pursuant to section 627.215, Florida Statutes (2009)?
Findings Of Fact Premier is a foreign insurer authorized to write workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. As a workers' compensation insurer, Premier is subject to the jurisdiction of the Office. Premier began writing workers' compensation insurance coverage in Florida on January 1, 2005. The Office is a subdivision of the Financial Services Commission responsible for the administration of the Insurance Code, including section 627.215. Section 627.215(1)(a) requires that insurer groups writing workers' compensation insurance file with the Office on a form prescribed by the Commission, the calendar-year earned premium; accident-year incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses; the administrative and selling expenses incurred in or allocated to Florida for the calendar year; and policyholder dividends applicable to the calendar year. Insurer groups writing types of insurance other than workers' compensation insurance are also governed by section 627.215. Its purpose is to determine whether insurers have realized an excessive profit and if so, to provide a mechanism for determining the profit and ordering its return to consumers. Insurer groups are also required to file a schedule of Florida loss and loss adjustment experience for each of the three years prior to the most recent accident year. Section 627.215(2) provides that "[t]he incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses shall be valued as of December 31 of the first year following the latest accident year to be reported, developed to an ultimate basis, and at two 12-month intervals thereafter, each developed to an ultimate basis, so that a total of three evaluations will be provided for each accident year." Section 627.215 contains definitions that are critical to understanding the method for determining excess profits. Those definitions are as follows: "Underwriting gain or loss" is computed as follows: "the sum of the accident-year incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses as of December 31 of the year, developed to an ultimate basis, plus the administrative and selling expenses incurred in the calendar year, plus policyholder dividends applicable to the calendar year, shall be subtracted from the calendar-year earned premium." § 627.215(4). While the sum of the accident-year losses and loss adjustment expenses are required by the statute to be developed to an ultimate basis, the administrative and selling expenses are not. "Anticipated underwriting profit" means "the sum of the dollar amounts obtained by multiplying, for each rate filing of the insurer group in effect during such period, the earned premium applicable to such rate filing during such period by the percentage factor included in such rate filing for profit and contingencies, such percentage factor having been determined with due recognition to investment income from funds generated by Florida business, except that the anticipated underwriting profit . . . shall be calculated using a profit and contingencies factor that is not less than zero." § 627.215(8). Section 627.215 requires that the underwriting gain or loss be compared to the anticipated underwriting profit, which, as previously stated, is tied to the applicable rate filing for the insurer. Rate filings represent a forecast of expected results, while the excess profits filing is based on actual expenses for the same timeframe. The actual calculation for determining whether an insurer has reaped excess profits is included in section 627.215(7)(a): Beginning with the July 1, 1991, report for workers' compensation insurance, employer's liability insurance, and commercial casualty insurance, an excessive profit has been realized if the net aggregate underwriting gain for all these lines combined is greater than the net aggregate anticipated underwriting profit for these lines plus 5 percent of earned premiums for the 3 most recent calendar years for which data is filed under this section. . . Should the Office determine, using this calculation, that an excess profit has been realized, the Office is required to order a return of those excess profits after affording the insurer group an opportunity for hearing pursuant to chapter 120. OIR B1-15 (Form F) is a form that the Office has adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-189.007, which was promulgated pursuant to the authority in section 627.215. The information submitted by an insurer group on Form F is used by the Office to calculate the amount of excessive profits, if any, that a company has realized for the three calendar-accident years reported. The terms "loss adjustment expenses," and "administrative and selling expenses," are not defined by statute. Nor are they defined in rule 69O-189.007 or the instructions for Form F. Form F's first page includes section four, under which calendar-year administrative and selling expenses are listed. Section four has five subparts: A) commissions and brokerage expenses; B) other acquisition, field supervision, and collection expense; C) general expenses incurred; D) taxes, licenses, and fees incurred; and E) other expenses not included above. No guidance is provided in section 627.215, in rule 60O-189.007, or in the instructions for Form F, to identify what expenses may properly be included in the Form F filing. There is no indication in any of these three sources, or in any other document identified by the Office, that identifies whether federal income taxes are to be included or excluded from expenses to be reported in a Form F filing. While the form clearly references taxes, licenses, and fees incurred under section 4(D), the instructions do not delineate what types of taxes, licenses, and fees should be included. The instructions simply state: "for each of the expenses in item 4, please provide an explanation of the methodology used in deriving the expenses, including supporting data." On or about June 30, 2009, Premier filed its original Form F Filing with the Office pursuant to section 627.215 and rule 69O-189.007. Rule 69O-189.007 requires that a Form F be filed each year on or before July 1. On March 19, 2010, the Office issued a Notice of Intent, directing Premier to return $7,673,945.00 in "excessive profits" pursuant to section 627.215. Premier filed a petition challenging the Office's determination with respect to the amount to be refunded, based in part on its position that federal income tax expense is appropriately included as an expense for calculation of excess profits. The parties attempted to resolve their differences over the next year or so. As part of their exchange of information, Premier subsequently filed three amendments to its Form F filing on December 11, 2009; on June 21, 2010; and on January 13, 2012. In each of its amended filings, Premier included the federal income tax expense attributable to underwriting profit it earned during the 2005-2007 period. These expenses were included under section 4(E). As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, Premier filed a challenge to the Office's policy of not allowing federal income taxes to be used as an expense for excess profits filings as an unadopted rule. On July 5, 2012, a Final Order was issued in Case No. 12-1201, finding that the Office's Policy regarding the inability to deduct federal income taxes as an expense for excess profits filings met the definition of a rule and had not been adopted as a rule, in violation of section 120.54(a). The Final Order in Case No. 12-1201 directed the Office to discontinue immediately all reliance upon the statement or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action. At this point, the parties have resolved their differences with respect to all of the calculations related to the determination of excess profits, with one exception. The sole issue remaining is the amount, if any, that should be deducted as an administrative expense for payment of federal income tax. The parties have also stipulated that, before any adjustment to federal income tax is made, Premier's underwriting profit for 2005 was $2,923,157 and for 2006 was $2,119,115. For 2008, Premier suffered an underwriting loss of $785,170. Premier's federal income tax rate for all three years was 35%. The maximum amount of underwriting profit that a company can retain is the net aggregate anticipated profit, plus five percent of earned premiums for the calendar years reported on workers' compensation business. For the 2005-2007 reporting years, Premier's maximum underwriting profit is stipulated to be $1,189,892. Anything over this amount is considered excessive profits which must be returned to policyholders. The parties also agree that, prior to any deduction for federal income tax paid by Premier, the amount of excess profit earned by Petitioner and subject to return to policyholders is $3,067,220. Premier has filed a fourth amended Form F, which incorporated all of the stipulations of the parties to date. The fourth amended Form F also includes an allocation of federal income tax expense based upon the statutory allocation methodology outlined in section 220.151, Florida Statutes (2009). Section 220.151 provides the statutory method for allocating federal income tax expenses for purpose of paying Florida corporate income taxes. This section directs that insurance companies shall allocate federal taxable income based on the ratio of direct written premium the insurance company has written in Florida for the relevant period, divided by the direct written premium anywhere. Premier paid its Florida corporate income tax based upon this statutory methodology. Consistent with the methodology in section 220.151, Premier allocated its federal taxable income to the State of Florida based upon the percentage of direct premium written on risks in Florida, and reduced the amount of its federal taxable income by the amount investment income reflected on its federal tax return. Premier then multiplied the Florida portion of its taxable income by its 35% federal tax rate, resulting in the federal income tax expense allocated to Florida. For the year 2005, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return is $7,614,512.89. After subtracting investment income listed on the tax return of $969,051.97, the taxable income attributable to premium is $6,645,460.92. For 2006, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return is $6,577,534.06. After subtracting investment income of $2,011,614.86, the taxable income attributable to premium is $4,565,919.20. For 2007, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return was $4,359,742.88. After subtracting investment income of $2,266,291.99, the taxable income attributable to premium is $2,093,450.89. For the three years combined, the federal taxable income was $18,551,789.83. The amount of investment income subtracted was $5,246,958.82, leaving a balance of taxable income attributable to premium as $13,304,831.01. For the years 2005 through 2007, Premier paid $2,665,079.51; $2,302,136.92; and $1,525,910.01 respectively, in federal income tax. During those same years, Premier wrote 58.8388%; 51.2514%; and 29.8536%, respectively, of its direct premium in Florida. Allocating a portion of Premier's federal tax income and income tax liability to Florida, consistent with section 220.151, results in a calculation of Florida's portion of taxable underwriting income. For 2005, this amount is $3,910,109.46; for 2006, $2,340,097.51; and for 2007, $624,970.45. The total amount of federal taxable income allocated to Florida for the three-year period of $6,875,177.42. The taxable income is then multiplied by the applicable tax rate of 35%, which results in a federal income tax expense allocated to Florida of $1,368,538.46 for 2005; $819,034.13 for 2006; and $218,739.45 for 2007, totaling $2,406,312.10 for the three-year period at issue. The undersigned notes that Premier only writes workers' compensation insurance. It does not write other lines of insurance, which makes the allocation of earned premium much simpler than it would be for a company writing multiple lines of insurance. Under the methodology described above, Premier determined that $2,406,312.10 is the appropriate amount of federal income tax expense to be deducted for calendar years 2005-2007, resulting in an excess profit pursuant to section 627.215, of $660,907. Mr. Hester, a certified public accountant and president of Premier, testified that this methodology was used by Premier in determining its Florida corporate income tax liability. The methodology described above uses the amounts that Premier actually paid in taxes, and therefore reflects the actual expense experienced by Premier. It is accepted as a reasonable method. According to Mr. Watford, the Office does not determine the methodology that must be used in allocating expenses. The insurance company provides the methodology and the data to support it, and then the Office determines whether, in a given case, the methodology is appropriate. Premier points out that the Office has provided no guidance on how to allocate federal income tax expense for excess profits reporting. That no guidance has been offered is understandable, inasmuch as the Office holds firmly to the belief that no allowance for federal income tax expense should be made. Nonetheless, the Office reviewed the method provided by Premier and did not find it to be reasonable. Premier included in its Form F filing for the years 2005-2007 a deduction for the portion of Florida corporate income tax expense not related to investment income. The Office accepted the Florida corporate income tax deduction, which is calculated using the same allocation method Premier used to allocate federal income tax expense. Indeed, the Office acknowledged at hearing that it has permitted the methodology of direct written premium in Florida divided by direct written premium written everywhere for the determination of other expenses for excess profits filings, and has only rejected the methodology on one occasion. However, it has not accepted this same methodology for determining the appropriate amount of federal income tax expense and does not believe it to be a reasonable methodology. The rationale for this distinction is that, in Mr. Watford's view, federal income tax is "a totally different type of expense." Mr. Watford did not consult an accountant or certified public accountant in making the determination that the methodology used was impermissible. Mr. Watford opined that in order to determine that a proposed methodology is reasonable, the insurance company would need to have an adjustment in the profit factor, i.e., submit a new rate filing for the years in question; have a projected tax expense that did not exceed the expense he calculated, based on the effect on future tax expenses caused by the return of excess profits; and submit a methodology that was "appropriate for the insurance company." This approach is rejected. First, the rate filing is supposed to be a forecast, and the Office cited to no authority for adjusting the forecast in light of actual events. Further, Mr. Watford admitted that in this instance, the profit and contingencies factor is already at zero for the years at issue, and section 627.125 provides that no factor less than zero can be used to determine excess profits. Second, the excess profits statute specifies that the deduction for administrative and selling expenses is for those expenses incurred in Florida or allocated to Florida for the current year. Unlike incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses, administrative and selling expenses are not developed to an ultimate basis, which appears to be what the Office is attempting to require. Administrative expenses are incurred by calendar year.1/ Other than the net cost of re-insurance, the Office has not permitted any expense that is to be valued at a date that is later than the end of the calendar year(s) at issue in the excess profits filing. The future effect of these expenses would be considered in the year that effect is realized. Third, allowing whatever is "appropriate for the insurance company" is simply too nebulous a standard, to the extent it is a standard at all, to apply.2/ As noted by Mr. Hester, federal income tax liabilities are governed by the Internal Revenue Code and its attendant regulations, and not tied specifically to underwriting gain or loss.3/ Similarly, Florida corporate income tax liabilities are governed by Florida's taxing statutes. The fact that their calculation is not governed by the Florida Insurance Code does not change the fact that they are administrative expenses borne by the insurance company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office enter a Final Order finding that $2,406,312.10 may be deducted for federal income tax expense incurred or allocated to Florida for purposes of section 627.215, and that Premier must return $660,907.90 in excessive profits to its policyholders. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 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 19th day of December, 2012.
