The Issue Whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Respondent was a participant in Petitioner’s retirement benefits fund. The retirement fund qualifies as a public retirement system. Respondent was hired by Petitioner on February 16, 1998, and at the time of his termination from employment he worked as a sewer operations team leader in Petitioner’s wastewater collections department. According to the Notice of Disciplinary Action dated July 8, 2010, Respondent’s employment with the City of Tampa was terminated based on the following: During the course of an investigation by the Tampa Police Department, report #2010-900187, you admitted to the following violations of City of Tampa policy: Using a City issued cellular phone for non- City related phone calls which furthered illegal activity; and using a City issued vehicle to participate in activities not related to your employment; both of which are violations of City of Tampa Personnel Manual, Discipline Administration, B28.2,3(c)(9), Neglect of Duty, Use of City equipment, including vehicles, for any unauthorized purpose. Wearing a City issued uniform while conducting unauthorized and illegal activities, violating City of Tampa Personnel Manual, Discipline Administration, B28.2,3(b)(8), Insubordination, Inappropriate use of City identification, including uniforms. Further, your behaviors as revealed in the investigation by the Tampa Police Department, are incompatible with the moral and ethical standards expected of City of Tampa employees and these behaviors are violations of City of Tampa Personnel Manual, Discipline Administration, B28.2,3(d)(9), Moral Turpitude, Engaging in any employment, activity or enterprise which is illegal, incompatible or in technical conflict with the employee’s duties and responsibilities as a City employee. The instant proceeding, as noted in Petitioner’s PRO, does not focus on whether Respondent’s conduct violated the City of Tampa’s “moral and ethical standards,” but instead focuses on whether Respondent, during the course of an investigation by the Tampa Police Department, admitted to wearing his city-issued uniform, and using his city vehicle and cell phone in furtherance of illegal activity.1/ Background In 2010, Detective Korey Diener of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, was involved in a long-term investigation involving counterfeit checks. As part of the investigation, Detective Diener was monitoring a suspect by the name of Shannon Edwards (Edwards). During a circuit court probation hearing on February 24, 2010, Edwards, who was acquainted with Respondent because they hung out in the same neighborhood, presented a State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Public Service Hours form, which indicated that he (Edwards) had completed his court-ordered community service hours. Another detective, who was also involved with the case, was present in the courtroom and knew that the form was falsified based, in part, on a surveillance conversation he heard between Edwards and his girlfriend, Chelsea Niles (Niles). During the surveilled conversation, Edwards asked Niles to contact Respondent so that he could secure for Edwards a form showing that Edwards had performed the required community service hours, when in actuality he (Edwards) had not. According to Petitioner, Edwards, while using Niles as his agent, reached out to Respondent because Respondent, as a city employee, “knew somebody” who could prepare the needed community service form. Mr. Edwards did not testify during the disputed-fact hearing, and his statement is not being accepted for the truth of the matter stated therein. Ross Fabian (Fabian) was Respondent’s contact person for securing the fraudulent form. Respondent’s undisputed, credible testimony is that he knew Fabian because as a juvenile, Respondent had gotten into trouble and performed his ordered community service hours under Fabian’s supervision. Respondent maintained a relationship with Fabian throughout the years, but there is no evidence that the relationship between the two was in any way connected to Respondent’s employment with the city. Petitioner seeks to infer from Edwards’ statement that Respondent was a “city employee that knows somebody,” the existence of a nexus between Respondent’s employment and the securing of the fraudulent form. The evidence is insufficient to support such an inference. Police Interview The predicate for the instant action lies in that portion of the Notice of Disciplinary Action which provides that during the course of an investigation by the Tampa Police Department, Respondent “admitted” to “[u]sing a City issued phone for non-City related phone calls which furthered illegal activity, using a City issued vehicle to participate in activities not related to your employment, and [w]earing a City issued uniform while conducting unauthorized and illegal activities.” The evidence of record does not establish that Respondent admitted to the conduct as alleged. On June 16, 2010, Respondent was interviewed by Detective Mike Victor of the Tampa Police Department and Detective Korey Diener of the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office. A transcript of the audio recording was admitted into evidence. During the interview, Respondent was asked about the phone that he used when speaking with Edwards about the fraudulent community service hours. In response to the question, Respondent informed the detectives that he used his personal phone when speaking with Edwards. At no point during his interview with law enforcement did Respondent admit to using a city-issued cell phone as part of the transactions related to the fraudulent form. Furthermore, in reviewing the transcript of audio recording, Respondent was never asked if he used his city truck or was wearing his city-issued uniform while interacting with Edwards, Fabian, Niles, or anyone else who may have been involved with the execution of the fraudulent community service form. Succinctly stated, the transcript of Respondent’s recorded interview does not in any way indicate that Respondent admitted to using his city truck, or to wearing his city-issued uniform while completing the transactions related to the execution of the fraudulent community service form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund enter a final order: Finding that there is no nexus between Respondent’s conduct and his public employment; Finding that forfeiture of Respondent’s benefits under the retirement plan is not authorized pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes; and Dismissing the petition for forfeiture, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, St. Joe Paper Company, is a taxpayer subject to the requirements of the Florida Corporate Income Tax. Its principal offices are located at 803 Florida National Bank Building, Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner filed its 1976 calendar year tax return with respondent, Department of Revenue (Department), on September 23, 1977. Although filings are normally due on April 1, the filing was made pursuant to an extension of time to and including October 1, 1977 which was granted by the Department. Petitioner was subsequently audited by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) for calendar years 1972 through 1977. Thereafter, petitioner and IRS entered into a settlement in 1982 wherein they agreed that certain adjustments were required for each of the audited tax years. The adjustments resulted in an overpayment of the Florida Income Tax for 1976. Subsection 220.23(2) , Florida Statutes, requires that a taxpayer notify the Department whenever an IRS audit results in adjustments to the taxpayer's net income subject to the Florida corporate income tax for any taxable year. Because the IRS sett1enent affected the years 1972 through 1977, petitioner filed amended returns for those years with the Department on October 8, 1982. According to the amended returns, petitioner owed additional taxes for all years except 1976, when it had made an overpayment. It added these deficiencies, totaling $82,003.03, and subtracted the overpayment for 1976 ($18,174.10), resulting in a net tax owed the Department of $63,828.94. Petitioner also computed interest owed on its deficiencies for the years 1972-1975 and 1977 to be $39,956.58 and offset this amount with a $12,067.40 credit which it claimed was interest owed it by the Department for its overpayment of taxes for calendar year 1976. When the interest was added to the $63,828.94, the total liability was $91,718.42. The record is unclear whether petitioner calculated its 1976 interest using a 12 percent or 6 percent rate. The proper rate to be used is 6 percent. On August 5, 1983 the Department directed petitioner to appear at its Jacksonville office on August 11 to pay $12,067.40 and if it failed to do so, a tax warrant would be issued. Thereafter, on August 9 petitioner paid the deficiency. On August 15, 1983 petitioner filed an Application for Refund Form DR- 26 requesting a refund of its August 9 payment. In its application, it stated chat "(i)nterest computed on the tax refund for 1976 was offset against interest due for other years", and that the Department's refusal to allow this offset was error. On August 19, 1983 the Department's classification officer, audit classification, issued a letter denying the application on the following grounds: Florida Statutes 214.14 requires that interest be paid should the Department take longer than nine (9) months to refund an overpayment of tax. When computing interest, the Department does so under the theory that each year stands alone. Consequently, offsetting of deficiencies and overpayments is not recognized when computing interest. Your letter of October 8, 1982, shows that check number 2400 was sent, with the Amended Florida returns, to pay the net additional tax and interest. Consequently, the 1976 refund would be deemed to have been made within the nine-month period required under Florida Statute 214.14. This letter prompted the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: that petitioner's application for a refund be GRANTED and that it be computed at a 6 percent rate to run from October 1, 1977. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. W. W. Carlson Assistant Vice-President St. Joe Paper Co. 803 Florida National Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 3220 Barbara Staros Harmon, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Randy Miller Executive Director Department of Revenue Carlton Building, Room 102 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
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 issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anne E. Carr is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0268356. In 1988 Helen B. Moser and her husband, John J. Moser, Jr., obtained their real estate salesman licenses. In 1989 they became real estate brokers. Upon becoming licensed brokers, they decided that they would like to open their own real estate office. They began contacting various real estate brokers seeking advice on how to open and operate a real estate business. Respondent was one of the brokers the Mosers contacted for advice. She and the Mosers already knew each other from previous professional activities. At the time, Respondent was the broker and sole stockholder of Carr Real Estate, Inc. She also was spending a substantial amount of time selling luxury condominiums for a particular developer, which required her to be on-site at the development. Respondent suggested to the Mosers that they join Carr Real Estate, Inc., and run the office for her rather than opening their own office, which would give them immediate access to her listings and many clients and allow her to devote her time to sales for the large real estate development. The Mosers agreed that was a good opportunity for all concerned and joined Carr Real Estate, Inc., as broker/salesmen in October of 1989. The Mosers began running the business for Respondent at her request, providing Respondent with monthly accountings. During 1990 the Mosers earned approximately $90,000 as a result of the listings they took over from Respondent and as a result of the listings Respondent referred to them. Throughout that year Carr Real Estate, Inc., remained a major presence in the Highland Beach area where Respondent was well known both for her flamboyant fashions and her ability to list and sell luxury ocean-front and water-front properties. During the first week of December 1990 Respondent advised the Mosers that due both to financial problems she was experiencing and pressure on her from the developer to devote full time to his sales she would be closing the business on December 31 unless the Mosers wanted to purchase the company from her. They advised Respondent they were interested in doing so and that they would draft the documents for Respondent's signature. Many discussions took place between Respondent and the Mosers over the next several weeks formulating the terms of the sale of the business, and the Mosers submitted to Respondent a number of drafts of documents. While the negotiations were on-going, Respondent filled out and executed on December 12, 1990, the documents necessary for her to file for personal bankruptcy. On December 15 she faxed written instructions to her attorney to not file the bankruptcy petition because she was selling her company. On December 20, 1990, Respondent and the Mosers executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement and a Bill of Sale. It is noted that those documents also involved the sale of Respondent's interest in two other corporations to the Mosers but that portion of the transaction raises no issues involved in this proceeding. The Purchase and Sale Agreement provided that its effective date would be January 1, 1991. The Agreement specifically represented that Carr Real Estate, Inc., was being sold free of any liabilities and encumbrances and that the corporation did not own any tangible assets. The Agreement further provided that Respondent would indemnify the Mosers from all obligations and liabilities incurred by Carr Real Estate, Inc., prior to January 1, 1991. The Agreement provided for no money to change hands as a result of the Mosers' purchase of Respondent's business; rather, the purchase price for the corporation was five percent of all sales commissions received by the corporation for a period of two years. On December 29, 1990, Respondent executed the Seller's Affidavit given to her by the Mosers. The portion of the Seller's Affidavit pertinent to this dispute is that Respondent attested that there were no actions or proceedings then pending in any state or federal court in which "the Affiant or Corporations" are parties, including bankruptcy. It was very clear in Respondent's mind that what she was selling under the Purchase and Sale Agreement and the Bill of Sale and what she was attesting to in the Seller's Affidavit was in regard to the corporation and not her personally. It never occurred to Respondent that she was representing to the Mosers that she personally had no bills and no assets. Respondent had no intention of defrauding the Mosers. Supporting this intent is the clear language contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Bill of Sale, and the Seller's Affidavit that she would personally indemnify and hold harmless the Mosers from any liabilities incurred by the corporation prior to the effective date of the sale. In mid-January 1991, approximately two weeks after the effective date of the sale, the Mosers discovered that a bankruptcy petition had been filed on behalf of Respondent as an individual. Although that petition did not involve the corporation, John Moser immediately contacted Respondent who did not know that her attorney had filed the petition contrary to Respondent's instructions. On January 23, 1991, Respondent wrote to Helen Moser apologizing for the erroneous filing of her bankruptcy petition and assuring her that it would be corrected. Respondent immediately contacted her attorney to ascertain how the petition could be dismissed. She was advised by her attorney that the only way she could dismiss the petition was to not attend the first meeting of creditors which would cause the petition to automatically be dismissed. Respondent did fail to attend the first meeting of creditors. Due to her failure to attend, her bankruptcy petition was dismissed. She immediately contacted Helen Moser to advise her of the dismissal. On February 1, 1991, John Moser called Respondent to inform her that a statement for a monthly automobile lease payment in the name of Carr Real Estate had been received. Respondent immediately sent the Mosers a note indicating that she had contacted G.M.A.C. but that company refused to allow her to transfer responsibility for her automobile lease payments from the corporation to herself. She acknowledged that she was responsible for any of the lease payments and requested that the Mosers acknowledge that the automobile was not an asset of the corporation. At the time Respondent knew that she was responsible for the lease payments because she signed the lease agreement as an individual. Respondent's contact with G.M.A.C. was unnecessary since her automobile had been leased to her as an individual in June of 1988, a date which preceded the existence of Carr Real Estate, Inc. The automobile was insured in Respondent's individual name and was registered in the name of G.M.A.C. at Respondent's address. The Bill of Sale executed by Respondent and the Mosers does not list the automobile as an asset of the corporation that was conveyed. The automobile leased by Respondent was not an asset of the corporation. The only relationship between Respondent's leased automobile and Carr Real Estate, Inc., concerns the deduction of automobile expenses as business expenses on the tax return for Carr Real Estate, Inc. On February 6, 1992, Helen Moser asked Respondent for a copy of the 1990 corporate tax return for Carr Real Estate, Inc., and Respondent provided a copy to her that same day. The return had been prepared in August or September of 1991 by Mary Dorak, a person enrolled with the Internal Revenue Service. It contained an entry entitled "loan from shareholder" in the sum of $107,060. Respondent had been the sole shareholder of the corporation. On February 26, 1992, the Mosers obtained an opinion letter from an attorney advising them that the corporation was not liable to Respondent for any debts. Neither the Mosers nor their accountant ever contacted Dorak or Respondent about the information contained in that tax return. Instead, the Mosers filed an amended corporate tax return for 1990 for Carr Real Estate, Inc. They removed the automobile as a corporate asset while leaving the shareholder's loan because it benefited them tax-wise. Instead of amending the return, the Mosers could have filed a 1991 return showing Respondent's stock exchange for the basis that was left of the stock in the corporation because the transaction took effect on January 1 of that year. Doing so would have caused no adverse tax consequences to the Mosers. Respondent typically provided Dorak with a listing of Respondent's income and expenses for the year and would then simply sign the return after Dorak had prepared it without reviewing the return first. Without any input from Respondent, Dorak had listed the automobile and some personal debts of Respondent on the 1990 corporate tax return because Respondent could take advantage of certain business deductions. That action had no adverse tax consequences for the Mosers. The Mosers never requested a tangible property tax return which would have reflected if there were any assets in the corporation. Had they made this request, they would have been told that there was none in existence because the corporation had no assets. At the time that Respondent and the Mosers executed the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Bill of Sale, and the Seller's Affidavit in December, all three believed that the corporation had no assets or liabilities and that any assets and liabilities of Respondent were hers personally. As of January 1, 1991, the effective date of the sale, the corporation had no assets or liabilities. There were no tax consequences to the Mosers because of the listing of the shareholder loan in the 1990 corporate tax return because in that Subchapter S corporation the person ultimately adversely affected by the sale would be Respondent since she owned all of the shares in 1990. On the other hand, the filing of an amended 1990 corporate tax return by the Mosers without Respondent's knowledge and consent has resulted in adverse tax consequences to her, an unnecessary result. In November 1988 Respondent was involved in the sale of a condominium unit owned by Mr. and Mrs. Roy Heinz. Due to extended negotiations, the buyer's decision to not purchase the unit, and instructions from Heinz who was her client, Respondent delayed in placing the buyer's deposit check in her escrow account. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent only and not also against Carr Real Estate, Inc., since that corporation was not yet in existence. After a formal evidentiary hearing, a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings specifically cleared Respondent of any intentional wrongdoing and of any culpable negligence. Respondent was found guilty, however, of what was specifically characterized to be a technical violation of failure to immediately place the deposit check into her escrow account. The minimum penalty permissible was assessed against Respondent. Respondent was also dismissed from the civil lawsuit filed by Roy Heinz which emanated out of the same circumstances for which the administrative action was brought. The Mosers knew about the disciplinary action and the civil lawsuit pending against Respondent individually prior to their execution of the December 1990 documents transferring Carr Real Estate, Inc., from Respondent's ownership to theirs effective January 1, 1991. The "Roy Heinz matter" was specifically raised by John Moser during the negotiations among the Mosers and Respondent. In April of 1991 Respondent sent Helen Moser a copy of the Recommended Order finding Respondent not guilty of any dishonest conduct or culpable negligence, and Helen Moser failed to even read the entire Order since she considered it unimportant and because she knew the transaction involved occurred prior to the formation of Carr Real Estate, Inc. The Mosers continue to operate Carr Real Estate, Inc. The business has been diminishing, however, since 1991 due to the reduction in the number of salespersons affiliated with the business, John Moser's inability to attract listings and retain clients, and the amount of time the Mosers have been devoting to John Moser's computer business. Respondent's actions and/or inactions have not been the cause of the decline in Carr Real Estate, Inc.'s, business. Moreover, the Mosers have not been harmed financially or in any other way due to any statements contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Bill of Sale, or Seller's Affidavit executed by Respondent. The sale of Carr Real Estate, Inc., by Respondent to the Mosers benefited all three of them. In her negotiations surrounding that sale, Respondent agreed to the terms desired by the Mosers, acted honestly, and did not knowingly or intentionally misrepresent any material fact. Those misrepresentations alleged by the Mosers and Petitioner to be contained in the closing documents, such as any statement that Respondent personally had no assets or liabilities, were not material to the sale and purchase of the corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and dismissing that Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 6-11, 13, 15, 18, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 16, and 17 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 14 have been rejected as being subordinate. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-29, 31, and 33-36 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 30 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 32 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Theodore R. Gay, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Harold M. Braxton, P.A. Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7815
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 Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39-8011930243-9 should be revoked for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Administrative Complaint) issued by the Department of Revenue (Department) on June 5, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the state revenue laws, including the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation doing business as The Hyde Park Cafe at 1806 West Platt Street, Tampa, Florida. For purposes of collecting and remitting sales and use taxes, it is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2) and is required to comply with chapter 212. Respondent holds Certificate of Registration number 39- 8011930243-9, which became effective on July 27, 2000. A certificate of registration is required in order to do business in the state and requires its holder to collect and remit sales tax pursuant to chapter 212. See § 212.05(1), Fla. Stat. Respondent is also an employing unit as defined in section 443.036(20) and is subject to the unemployment compensation tax (UCT) provisions of chapter 443, as provided in section 443.1215. Through an interagency agreement with the Department of Economic Opportunity, the Department provides collection services for UCTs. See § 443.1316(1), Fla. Stat. In doing so, the Department is considered to be administering a revenue law of the state. See § 443.1316(2), Fla. Stat. A dealer must file with the Department sales tax returns and remit the tax collected on a monthly basis. See § 212.15(1), Fla. Stat. Also, an employment unit must remit payment to the Department for UCTs due and owing on a quarterly basis. The Department is authorized to revoke a dealer's certificate of registration for failure to comply with state tax laws. See § 212.18(3)(e), Fla. Stat. If the Department files a warrant, notice of lien, or judgment lien certificate against the property of a dealer, it may also revoke a certificate of registration. See § 213.692(1), Fla. Stat. Before revoking a certificate of registration, the Department must convene an informal conference that the dealer is required to attend. See § 213.692(1)(a), Fla. Stat. At the conference, the dealer may either present evidence to refute the Department's allegations of noncompliance or enter into a compliance agreement with the Department to resolve the dealer's failure to comply with chapter 212. Id. After a compliance agreement is executed by the dealer, the Department may revoke the certificate of registration if the dealer fails to comply with its terms and conditions. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ E. If a breach occurs, the entire amount is due and payable immediately. Id. at ¶ G. An informal conference can be characterized as the Department's last administrative remedy to collect delinquent taxes before beginning revocation proceedings. A dealer can also enter into a diversion program with the State Attorney's Office to resolve liabilities, but the record shows that Respondent defaulted on that arrangement. According to the Department, collection problems with this dealer first began in 2003. Department records show that Respondent failed to remit required sales taxes for the months of January 2012, August through December 2012, January through December 2013, and January and February 2014. In addition, Respondent failed to remit UCTs for the calendar quarters ending September 2010, December 2010, March 2011, June 2011, September 2011, December 2011, March 2012, June 2012, September 2012, December 2012, and March 2013. Respondent does not dispute that it failed to timely remit and pay the foregoing taxes for the time periods listed above. For the purpose of collecting the delinquent taxes, the Department issued and filed against Respondent delinquent tax warrants, notices of lien, or judgment lien certificates in the Hillsborough County public records. See Pet'r Ex. 3. Before seeking revocation of Respondent's certificate of registration, on February 5, 2014, the Department's Tampa Service Center served on Respondent a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Notice). See Pet'r Ex. 4. The Notice scheduled an informal conference on March 21, 2014. It listed 16 periods of sales and use tax noncompliance and 11 periods of re-employment tax noncompliance and provided the total tax liability as of that date. This number was necessarily fluid, as the taxes owed were accruing interest, penalties, and/or fees on a daily basis. The purpose of the informal conference was to give Respondent a final opportunity to make full payment of all delinquent taxes, or to demonstrate why the Department should not revoke its Certificate of Registration. As pointed out by the Department, an informal conference allows a dealer to bring up "any concerns" that it has regarding its obligations. Respondent's manager and registered agent, Christopher Scott, appeared at the conference on behalf of Respondent.1/ At the meeting, he acknowledged that the dealer had not timely paid the taxes listed in the Notice and that the money was used instead to keep the business afloat. However, Mr. Scott presented paperwork representing that sales and use tax returns and payments for the months of November 2013 through February 2014 had just been filed online, and checks in the amount of $8,101.41 and $9,493.99 were recently sent to Tallahassee. It takes 24 hours for online payments to show up in the system, and even more time for checks to be processed in Tallahassee. Accordingly, the Department agreed that Mr. Scott could have a few more days before signing a compliance agreement. This would allow the Department to verify that the payments were posted and recalculate the amount of taxes still owed. Also, before entering a compliance agreement, Respondent was required to make a down payment of around $20,000.00. Mr. Scott had insufficient cash, and a delay of a few days would hopefully allow him to secure the necessary money for a down payment. When none of the payments had posted by March 25, 2014, the Department calculated a total liability of $113,448.13, consisting of sales and use taxes and UCTs, penalties, interest, and fees. As of that date, none of the taxes listed in Finding of Fact 9 had been paid. On March 25, 2014, Respondent's controller, who did not attend the informal conference, sent an email to the Department requesting a breakdown on the new tax liability. In response to her request, the Department faxed a copy of the requested information. See Resp. Ex. 4. After getting this information, the controller continued to take the position that the Department's calculations overstate Respondent's tax liability. On March 31, 2014, Mr. Scott signed the compliance agreement. See Pet'r Ex. 6. Despite the controller testifying that she did not agree with the numbers, no question was raised by Mr. Scott when he signed the agreement. By then, the check in the amount of $8,101.41 had cleared and been credited to Respondent's account. Along with other funds, it was used towards the down payment of $20,000.00. The record does not show the status of the other payments that Mr. Scott claimed were mailed or filed online prior to the informal conference; however, on March 31, 2014, except for the one check, none had yet posted. The compliance agreement required scheduled payments for 12 months, with the final payment, a balloon payment in an undisclosed amount, being subject to renegotiation in the last month. Payments one and two were $1,500.00, while payments three through 11 were $2,900.00. The compliance agreement reflected a balance owed of $95,887.36, consisting of $60,504.34 in sales taxes and $35,347.02 in UCTs.2/ In return for the Department refraining from pursuing revocation proceedings, the compliance agreement required Respondent to "remit all past due amounts to the Department as stated in the attached payment agreement," "accurately complete and timely file all required tax returns and reports for the next 12 months," and "timely remit all taxes due for the next 12 months." Pet'r Ex. 1, p. 1. In other words, the compliance agreement addressed both delinquent taxes and current taxes that would be due during the following 12-month period, and it required that both categories of taxes be timely paid in the manner prescribed by the agreement. To summarize the salient points of the agreement, all taxes were to be timely paid; delinquent taxes were to be paid by certified check, money order, or cash and were to be mailed or hand delivered to the Tampa Service Center and not Tallahassee; and while not specifically addressed in the agreement, the dealer was instructed to pay all current obligations electronically, as required by law. Otherwise, Respondent was in violation of the compliance agreement. A Payment Agreement Schedule for past due taxes was incorporated into the compliance agreement and provided that the first payment was due April 30, 2014, payable to: Florida Department of Revenue, Tampa Service Center, 6302 East Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33619. Payments 2 through 12 were to be mailed or hand delivered to the same address. This meant, with no ambiguity, that money should not be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that these instructions were misunderstood. Unless a waiver is granted, Respondent is required by statute and rule to electronically file sales and use tax returns and UCT reports. See § 213.755, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 12-24.009 (where a taxpayer has paid its taxes in the prior state fiscal year in an amount of $20,000.00 or more, subsequent payments shall be made electronically). No waivers have been approved. In 2003, the Department notified Respondent of these requirements and Respondent complied with this directive until 2009. For reasons not disclosed, in 2009 Respondent voluntarily quit filing electronically. The record is silent on why this was allowed.3/ In any event, at the informal conference, Mr. Scott was specifically told that all current returns, reports, and taxes must be filed electronically, and not by mail, and that no money should be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that he misunderstood these instructions. In its PRO, Respondent correctly points out that the requirement to file current returns electronically was not specifically addressed in the compliance agreement. This is because the compliance agreement does not set forth every statutory and rule requirement that applies to a dealer. If this amount of detail were required, a dealer could ignore any otherwise applicable rule or statute not found in the compliance agreement. This contention has no merit. Respondent failed to electronically file the current sales and use tax return and payment for the month of March 2014, due no later than April 21, 2014. Instead, it sent a paper check, which was returned by the bank for insufficient funds. This constituted a breach of the compliance agreement. Despite repeated instructions on how and where to pay the delinquent taxes, payment 1, due on April 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent to Tallahassee, rather than the Tampa office. This contravened the compliance agreement. When payment was not timely received by the Tampa Service Center, Respondent was told that a check must be delivered to the Tampa office by May 9. Respondent hand delivered a second check, this one certified, to the Tampa Service Center on May 9, 2014, or after the April 30 due date. The second check was treated as payment 1. Respondent points out that on May 7 the Tampa Service Center granted its request for an extension of time until May 9 in which to deliver the certified check. While this is true, the extension was allowed in an effort to "work with" the Respondent on the condition that the account would be brought current by that date; otherwise, revocation proceedings would begin. Even if the extra ten days is construed as a grace period for payment 1, there were other violations of the compliance agreement set forth below. Payment 2 for delinquent taxes, due on May 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent by mail to Tallahassee rather than the Tampa Service Center.4/ This contravened the compliance agreement. After the May 30, 2014 payment, Respondent made no further payments pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule. This constituted a violation of the compliance agreement. Respondent did not remit payment with its current sales and use return for the month of August 2014. This contravened the compliance agreement. Respondent did not file any current sales and use tax returns or remit payment for the months of July 2014 or September through January 2015. This contravened the compliance agreement. Beginning in March 2014, Respondent filed current reemployment tax returns and payments using the incorrect tax rate on every return. This delayed their processing and resulted in penalties being imposed. In addition, even though Respondent was repeatedly told that such returns must be filed electronically, none were filed in that manner, as required by statute and rule. This contravened the compliance agreement. In its PRO, Respondent contends the compliance agreement cannot be enforced because there was no "meeting of the minds" by the parties on all essential terms of the agreement. Specifically, it argues that the total amount of taxes owed was still in dispute -- the dealer contended that it owed $23,000.00 less than was shown in the agreement; the Payment Schedule Agreement did not specify the amount of the final balloon payment; the compliance agreement failed to state when payments are due if the due date falls on a weekend or holiday; the compliance agreement did not specify how the dealer's payments would be allocated between UCTs and sales and use taxes; and the compliance agreement failed to address the issue of filing electronically. Although some of these issues were not raised in the parties' Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, or even addressed by testimony at hearing, they are all found to be without merit for the reasons expressed below. First, Mr. Scott did not dispute the amount of taxes owed when he signed the agreement, and he brought no evidence to the conference to support a different amount. Second, as explained to Mr. Scott at the informal conference, the precise amount of the balloon payment can only be established in the 12th month. This is because the exact amount depends on the dealer's compliance with the agreement over the preceding 11 months, and the amount of interest, penalties, and/or other fees that may have accrued during the preceding year. Third, there is no evidence that the dealer was confused when a due date for a payment fell on a weekend or holiday. Even if it was confused, reference to section 212.11(1)(e) and (f) would answer this question. Fourth, there is no statute or rule that requires the Department to specify how the delinquent payments are allocated. Moreover, neither Mr. Scott nor the controller requested that such an allocation be incorporated into the agreement before it was signed. Finally, the issue of filing electronically already has been addressed in Finding of Fact 22 and Endnote 3. At hearing, Respondent's controller testified that she was out of town when the conference was held, suggesting that Mr. Scott, who is not an accountant, was at a disadvantage when he attended the informal conference. However, Respondent had six weeks' notice before the conference, and there is no evidence that Respondent requested that the meeting be rescheduled to a more convenient day. Also, Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Scott was authorized to represent its interests at the conference, or that he could have been briefed by the controller before attending the informal conference or signing the compliance agreement. See also Endnote 1. Notably, at hearing, the controller testified that she "was involved in actually negotiating the agreement both before and after it was actually signed" even though she did not attend the conference. Tr. at 89. Respondent also contends that after the Department considered the compliance agreement to be breached, the dealer had no further obligation to make payments pursuant to the agreement or state law until the parties negotiated a new agreement. Aside from Respondent's failure to cite any authority to support this proposition, nothing in the compliance agreement comports with this assertion. To the contrary, the compliance agreement specifically provides that if a breach occurs, the entire tax liability becomes due immediately. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ G. Thus, Respondent is obligated to pay the entire tax liability, which now exceeds $200,000.00. All other arguments raised by Respondent have been carefully considered and are rejected as being without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39- 8011930243-9. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2015.
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.
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue properly denied Petitioner's March 10, 2000, Application For Refund of Sales and Use Tax, Petitioner having asserted that the Department of Revenue obtained the Closing Agreement through misrepresentation and intimidation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Tuskawilla Learning Center, is a Florida corporation which operates a private Montessori School in Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida. Petitioner has elected to be an "S" corporation for federal income tax reporting purposes. Tuskawilla Learning Center is owned by its shareholders, Thomas E. Phillips; his wife, Lois; his daughter, Terry Lynn DeLong; and his son-in-law, Daniel F. DeLong. At all times material to this matter, a partnership comprised of the above-named owners of the Tuskawilla Learning Center also owned the real property upon which the Tuskawilla Learning Center operated. In early July 1997, Respondent audited Petitioner's corporate transactions for the period from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1997, for compliance with sales and use tax and the local government infrastructure surtax. During the audit Petitioner was requested to provide all information and documents which Petitioner felt supported its business activities. Respondent issued a Notice Of Intent To Make Audit Changes on September 25, 1997, which advised Petitioner that the audit revealed that Petitioner had failed to pay use tax on purchases Petitioner made from out-of-state vendors, which Petitioner acknowledged and paid. The audit also revealed that Petitioner failed to pay sales tax on the monthly rental charges that Petitioner paid to the property owner on which the Tuskawilla Learning Center operated. Petitioner did not agree with Respondent's position on the sales tax on monthly rental charges. On October 28, 1997, an audit conference was held in Orlando, Florida, where the tax assessment on the monthly rental charges was discussed. The parties were unable to resolve the issue, and Petitioner requested that the issue be referred to Tallahassee for further review. The review in Tallahassee essentially confirmed the original audit findings, and a Notice of Proposed Assessment was issued on January 26, 1998. Petitioner filed a protest and requested a further review of the Notice of Proposed Assessment. As a result, the entire audit was reviewed, and Petitioner was allowed to provide additional documentation to support its position. On August 4, 1998, Respondent issued a Notice of Decision which essentially confirmed the findings of the original audit. At this point, Petitioner had certain rights of appeal which had to be exercised within specific time limits, or Petitioner could elect to pay the taxes and interest as set forth in a Closing Agreement in which Respondent waived the penalties which had accrued for failure to pay the tax. The various time deadlines passed without Petitioner electing one of the avenues of appeal nor did Petitioner execute the Closing Agreement. After all deadlines for appeal had passed, Petitioner contacted Respondent through an attorney seeking relief. Respondent found no basis for relief but renewed the opportunity for Petitioner to sign the Closing Agreement. On February 5, 1999, Petitioner executed the Closing Agreement and paid $71,693.87 (a $285.31 overpayment). The Closing Agreement clearly states: The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any judicial or administrative proceedings, including the remedies provided by ss. 213.21(2)(a) and 72.011(1), F.S., to recover, compromise, or avoid any tax, penalty or interest paid or payable pursuant to this agreement. This agreement is for the sole purpose of compromising and settling taxpayer's liability to the State of Florida . . . This agreement is final and conclusive with respect to the audit assessment or specific transaction/assessment and period described . . . and no additional assessment may be made by the Department against the taxpayer for the specific liability referenced above, except upon showing of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact . . . . On March 10, 2001, Petitioner filed an Application for Refund of the taxes and interest paid with the Closing Agreement. Attached to the Application for Refund was Petitioner's four-page "position paper," which outlined facts and arguments related to the sales tax issue. Petitioner's Application for Refund states that "the State has misled us." The Application for Refund went through the review process. On May 5, 2000, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Denial for the refund claim. Petitioner sought an informal review of the proposed refund denial. After an informal review of the proposed refund denial, on June 16, 2000, Respondent issued a Notice of Decision denying Petitioner's Application for Refund. On August 12, 2000, Petitioner forwarded a letter to Respondent, which was interpreted as a request for an administrative hearing to review the decision to deny the Application for Refund which resulted in the instant administrative hearing. Thomas E. Phillips has a Ph.D. in accounting from the University of Nebraska, is a Certified Public Accountant, and had taught accounting at the University of Central Florida for 23 years prior to his retirement. He and his family founded the Tuskawilla Learning Center. On behalf of Petitioner, Dr. Phillips maintains that the tax audit and subsequent review process were "intimidating" and that Respondent "misled" Petitioner. Notwithstanding Dr. Phillips' assertion that the audit and review process were "intimidating," he testified that he found the auditor and her supervisor "not intimidating, but were very pleasant." Dr. Phillips testified about several aspects of the audit and review process and activities that occurred during the audit and review process that he found objectionable. For example, Dr. Phillips testified that Respondent failed to respond to his inquiries in an appropriate way and that Respondent had misinterpreted certain case law that he felt applicable. Nothing offered by Dr. Phillips suggests any impropriety or misrepresentation by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's Application for Refund. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 26th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Thomas E. Phillips 1625 Montessori Point Oviedo, Florida 36527 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether the Application for Registration as an Associated Person filed by Petitioner should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person of Noble Investment Company of Palm Beach. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of February 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen M. Camechis H. Richard Bisbee Assistant General Counsels Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ardith H. Steele 1639 South University Drive Plantation, Florida 33324 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Petitioner paid sales and use tax on rental income from transient housing in Osceola and Polk counties, and whether Petitioner paid sales and use tax on the purchase of fixed assets in accordance with the requirements of Sections 212.03 and 212.06, Florida Statutes (1995). (Statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1995) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 3501 West Vine Street, Suite 387, Kissimmee, Florida. Petitioner primarily engages in the business of renting and managing transient property in the Orlando-Disney World area for absentee owners. Respondent is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Florida sales and use tax pursuant to Section 213.05. Respondent selected Petitioner for audit because Petitioner filed several sales and use tax returns reporting no taxable income (zero returns). Zero returns are unusual for a tourist-based business in the Orlando-Disney area. Osceola County, Florida (Osceola), also audited Petitioner for the period December 1994 through December 1999. Osceola is a political subdivision of the state and is responsible for administering and assessing the Tourist Development Tax authorized in Section 212.03 and Section 13-16, Osceola County Code of Ordinances (Code). Osceola audited Petitioner because Petitioner failed to file any tax returns with Osceola. Osceola correctly assessed Petitioner $394,378.39 for tax, penalty, and interest. The mathematical computations in the Osceola audit are correct. Osceola conducted its audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing principals. The Osceola audit revealed that Petitioner began doing business on January 1, 1995, but reported that it began doing business on both November 16, 1999, and March 12, 1998. The Osceola audit revealed that Petitioner failed to maintain required tax records, including guest registration forms; cash receipts; a general ledger; and documents necessary to verify amounts reported in tax returns. Petitioner did not reconcile its bank statements and did not maintain records necessary to verify that all receipts from guest registrations were properly entered into Petitioner's computer system of record keeping. Respondent began its audit on January 8, 2001. However, Respondent was unable to examine most of Petitioner's books and records due to a lack of cooperation from Petitioner. Respondent made several attempts to obtain Petitioner's books and records, but Petitioner provided Respondent with only consumable purchase invoices. Respondent and Osceola have an agreement to share information. Respondent relied on information obtained by Osceola in the course of the Osceola audit. Osceola provided Respondent with copies of Osceola's work papers including a spreadsheet of undeclared revenue compiled from Petitioner's books and records. Osceola also provided Respondent with a list of 102 properties managed by Petitioner during the audit period. Approximately 61 properties are located in Osceola County and 41 are located in Polk County. Respondent bases its assessment on an estimate derived from the Osceola assessment, records, and work papers. Respondent conducted its audit in accordance with applicable law. The mathematical computations in Respondent's audit are correct. Petitioner owes sales and use tax in the respective amounts of $218,152.88 and $125,680.72, due on rentals derived from transient housing in Osceola and Polk counties. Petitioner also owes sales and use tax in the amount of $2,100 from the sale of fixed assets. Interest accrues at the daily rate of $98.13.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order assessing Petitioner for tax, penalty, and accrued interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 11th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General, Tax Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Martha F. Barrera, Esquire Office of the Attorney General, Tax Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 A.C.E. Property Management of Orlando, Inc. 3501 West Vine Street, Suite 387 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
