The Issue The issue in this case is whether Callagy Tires, Inc. (Petitioner), collected and remitted the correct amount of sales and use tax on its operations for the audit period.
Findings Of Fact DOR is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the tax laws of the state of Florida. In conjunction with that duty, DOR performs audits of business entities conducting sales and use transactions. At all times material to the issues of this case, Petitioner conducted business in Palm Bay, Florida, and was obligated to collect and remit sales and use tax in connection with the activities of its business enterprise. Petitioner’s Federal Identification Number is 59-2221722. Petitioner sells tires (wholesale and retail), provides tire services such as installation, and performs other repair and towing services subject to sales or use taxes. In order to properly perform its audit responsibilities, DOR requires that businesses maintain and present business records to support the collection of sales and use taxes. In this case, DOR notified Petitioner that it intended to audit the business operations for the audit period, June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2007. After the appropriate notice to Petitioner, the audit was initiated on or about July 18, 2007. Employees of DOR went to Petitioner’s place of business, requested business records, and attempted to audit and reconcile Petitioner’s reported tax payments with the amounts and types of taxes that should have been remitted, based upon the records kept by Petitioner. Theoretically, the sums remitted to the Department should match the records of the business entity. In this case, the amount remitted by Petitioner could not be reconciled with the business records maintained by the business entity. As a result of the audit, DOR sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes that claimed Callagy Tires, Inc., owed sales and use tax in the amount of $121,707.41. By letter dated August 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a protest of the audit findings. Thereafter, the parties exchanged information that Petitioner claimed should require reconsideration of the audit results. Nevertheless, the Department could not reconcile the bank and audit information based upon the documentation submitted by Petitioner. The amounts of the Notice of Reconsideration remain at issue. As of the time of the hearing in this cause, Petitioner had not provided documentation to refute the findings of the Department’s audit. At hearing, DOR maintained that Petitioner owes $173,718.66, together with accruing interest. Specifically, the audit found that there was a difference between the gross sales reported by Petitioner on its federal return and the amounts reported on its state forms. The difference between the two returns constituted unreported sales for state tax purposes. Secondly, the Department determined that certain sales were not “exempt” as maintained by Petitioner. Based upon a sample of invoices provided by Petitioner, DOR found that Petitioner did not remit the full sales tax due on certain types of services. For example, the correct sales tax was not remitted on machining brake rotors, truing brake rotors, or making repairs that included the use of tangible personal property. The taxable event required a calculation of sales tax on the entire amount, not a percentage of the cost. The third area of discrepancy identified by the audit, related to unpaid sales tax on machinery, equipment, supplies, and services purchased by Petitioner for use in the operation of its business. Throughout the audit process, and, subsequently, Petitioner never presented documentation to dispute the Department’s audit findings. DOR gave Petitioner every opportunity to present records that would establish that the correct amounts of sale and use taxes were collected and remitted. Petitioner timely challenged the audit findings, but, has not, through its principal owner or its agents, provided documentation that show the taxes were appropriately calculated and paid. Petitioner maintains that an amended federal tax return verifies the state return previously filed is accurate. Notwithstanding that assertion, Petitioner has not presented the underlying documentation to support the state or federal return. Further, Petitioner refused to allow DOR to review all of its electronically stored records, and did not make the records available to DOR.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the audit findings, and require the Petitioner to remit the unpaid sales and use taxes in the amount of $173,718.66, together with accrued interest, as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Eugene M. Callagy, Jr. Callagy Tires, Inc. 6625 Babcock Street, Southeast Malabar, Florida 32950 Patrick Hanley, Esquire 185 Forest Road Troy, Montana 59935-9572 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner owes the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Department of Revenue based upon its audit of Petitioner for the period of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of selling and installing floor covering materials, such as carpet and tile. Petitioner's business is located in Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner sales fall into two basic categories: "cash and carry sales" and "installation sales." The "cash and carry sales" are retail sales of floor covering materials to customers that come into Petitioner's store. These sales do not involve any installation work by Petitioner. The "installation sales" are sales in which Petitioner installs the floor covering material in the customer's home or business. These sales are performed pursuant to a lump-sum contract which incorporates the price of the installation and the price of the floor covering materials being installed. Petitioner purchases the floor covering materials from suppliers and distributors. Those purchases become part of the inventory from which Petitioner makes its "installation sales." Petitioner also makes general purchases of goods and services necessary for the day-to-day operation of its business. These purchases include items such as cleaning supplies and vehicle repairs. Petitioner made several fixed-assets purchases during the audit period for use in its business. It purchased a word processor in August 1996, and it purchased equipment and fixtures in December 1996. On those occasions that Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers on the "cash and carry sales" or paid sales tax on its inventory purchases and general purchases, it remitted or reported those amounts to the Department. However, as discussed below, Petitioner did not collect the full amount of sales tax due on each sale, nor did it pay the full amount of sales tax due on each purchase. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws. The Department is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers to determine their compliance with the sales tax laws. By letter dated September 10, 2001, the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to conduct a sales tax audit of Petitioner's records for the period of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 2001. The audit was conducted by David Coleman, a tax auditor with seven years of experience with the Department. Petitioner designated its certified public accountant, P.J. Testa, as its representative for purposes of the Department's audit. That designation was memorialized through a power of attorney form executed by Petitioner on March 5, 2002. Mr. Coleman communicated with Mr. Testa throughout the course of the audit. Mr. Coleman conducted the audit using a sampling methodology agreed to by Mr. Testa on behalf of Petitioner. Pursuant to that methodology, Mr. Coleman conducted a comprehensive review of Petitioner's year-2000 purchase and sales invoices and extrapolated the results of that review to the other years in the audit period. The sampling methodology was used because of the volume of records and transactions during the audit period and because of the unavailability of all of the records for the audit period. The year 2000 was chosen as the sample period because Petitioner's records for the other years in the audit period were incomplete or unavailable. Mr. Coleman's audit of the year-2000 invoices focused on three broad types of transactions. First, he reviewed invoices of Petitioner's retail "cash and carry sales." Second, he reviewed the invoices through which Petitioner purchased the floor covering materials that it later sold as part of its "installation sales." Third, he reviewed the invoices through which Petitioner made general purchases of tangible personal property used in the day-to-day operation of its business. The sampling methodology was used for the audit of Petitioner's "cash and carry sales," the inventory purchases related to the "installation sales," and the general purchases. The methodology was not used for the audit of Petitioner's fixed-asset purchases; Mr. Coleman reviewed all of the available records for the fixed-asset purchases during each year of the audit period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's retail "cash and carry sales" identified 29 invoices during year-2000 on which no sales tax or less than the full sales tax was paid by the customer. Those invoices amounted to $17,451.30, on which $1,178.11 in total sales tax was due, but only $552.97 was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $625.14 for the retail sales during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's purchases of floor covering that was later sold in the "installation sales" identified a considerable number of purchases during year-2000 on which no sales tax or less than the full sales tax was paid by Petitioner to the supplier or distributor of the materials. Those purchases amounted to $123,398.52, but only $123,397.80 of that amount was taxable. On the taxable amount, $8,330.07 in total sales tax was due, but only $6,810.68 was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $1,519.41 for Petitioner's inventory purchases during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's "general purchases" identified 10 sales during year-2000 on which sales tax was not paid. Those invoices amounted to $2,914.76, on which $196.77 in sales tax was due, but none of which was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $196.77 for the general purchases during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's fixed-asset purchases identified only two transactions during the entire audit period on which Petitioner did not pay the full sales tax. Those transactions amounted to $5,078.92, on which $330.14 in total sales tax was due, but none of which was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $330.14 for the fixed-asset purchases during the audit period. The tax deficiencies calculated by Mr. Coleman for year-2000 for each category described above take into account any sales tax collected by Petitioner from its customers or paid by Petitioner to its vendors. After Mr. Coleman computed the tax deficiencies based upon his audit of the year-2000 records, he calculated a "percentage of error" for each category of sales/purchases. The percentage of error is the ratio used to extrapolate the results of the audit of the year-2000 records over the remainder of the audit period. No percentage of error was calculated for the fixed-asset purchases because Mr. Coleman reviewed the available records for those purchases over the entire audit period, not just year-2000. The percentage of error was calculated by dividing the sales tax deficiency identified in a particular category for the year-2000 by the total sales/purchases in that category for the year-2000. For the year-2000, Petitioner had retail sales of $1,143,182.45; general purchases of $21,254.88; and inventory purchases of $1,214,016.24. As a result, the applicable percentages of error were 0.000547 ($625.14 divided by $1,143,182.45) for the retail sales; 0.009258 ($196.77 divided by $21,254.88) for the general purchases; and 0.001252 ($1,519.41 divided by $1,214,016.24) for the inventory purchases. The percentages of error were then multiplied by the total sales in the applicable category for the entire audit period to calculate a total tax deficiency in each category. Petitioner's total retail sales over the audit period were $4,455,373.40. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $2,437.12 (i.e., $4,455,373.40 multiplied by 0.000547). Petitioner's total general purchases over the audit period were $110,741.49. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $1,025.25 (i.e., $110,741.49 multiplied by 0.009258). Petitioner's total inventory sales over the audit period were $3,130,882.10. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $3,919.86 (i.e., $3,130,882.10 multiplied by 0.001252). Petitioner's total tax deficiency was computed by adding the deficiencies in each category, as follows: Retail Sales $2,437.12 General Purchases 1,025.25 Inventory Purchases 3,919.86 Fixed-asset purchases 330.14 TOTAL $7,712.37 Of that total, $6,863.02 reflects the state sales tax deficiency; $313.77 reflects the indigent care surtax deficiency; and $535.58 reflects the local government infrastructure surtax deficiency. The sales tax rate in effect in Hillsborough County during the audit period was 6.75 percent. The state sales tax was six percent; the remaining 0.75 percent was for county surtaxes, namely the local government infrastructure surtax and the indigent care surtax. That rate was used by Mr. Coleman in calculating the tax deficiencies described above. On October 4, 2002, Mr. Coleman hand-delivered the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Change (NOI) to Petitioner. The NOI is the end-product of Mr. Coleman's audit. The NOI identified the total tax deficiency set forth above, as well as a penalty of $3,856.26, which is the standard 50 percent of the tax deficiency amount, and interest of $2,561.63, which is calculated at a statutory rate. The NOI included copies of Mr. Coleman's audit work- papers which showed how the taxes, penalties, and interest were calculated. The NOI also included a copy of the "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" which informed Petitioner of the procedure by which it could protest the audit results reflected on the NOI. On October 29, 2002, the Department issued three NOPAs to Petitioner. A separate NOPA was issued for each type of tax -- i.e., sales tax, indigent care surtax, and local government infrastructure surtax. The cumulative amounts reflected on the NOPAs were the same as that reflected on the NOI, except that the interest due had been updated through the date of the NOPAs. Interest continues to accrue on assessed deficiencies at a cumulative statutory rate of $1.81 per day. The NOPAs were sent to Petitioner by certified mail, and were received by Petitioner on November 1, 2002. By letter dated November 5, 2002, Petitioner protested the full amount of the taxes assessed on the NOPAs and requested a formal administrative hearing. The letter was signed by Mr. Testa on Petitioner's behalf. The protest letter does not allege that the methodology used by Mr. Coleman was improper or that the results of the audit were factually or legally erroneous. Instead, the protest letter states that Petitioner was disputing the results of the audit because it was "following procedures set forth by an agent from a previous audit who established the manner in which [Petitioner was] to compute sales tax on the items being questioned by the current auditor." Mr. Testa made similar comments to Mr. Coleman during the audit. When Mr. Coleman requested documentation from Mr. Testa to corroborate those comments about the procedures allegedly established by the prior auditor, Mr. Testa was unable to provide any such documentation. The record of this proceeding is similarly devoid of evidence to support Petitioner's allegation on this point. The record does not contain any evidence to suggest that Petitioner ever modified or revoked Mr. Testa's authority to represent it in connection with the audit or this protest, which Mr. Testa initiated on Petitioner's behalf. Petitioner, through Mr. Testa, had due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing in these cases. Neither Mr. Testa, nor anyone else on Petitioner's behalf, appeared at the final hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order imposing the taxes, interest, and penalties against Petitioner in the full amounts set forth in the three Notices of Proposed Assessment dated October 28, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 30th day of December, 2003.
The Issue What relief, if any, should be provided by Petitioner to Respondent as the result of an accidental overpayment, and the subsequent recoupment of the overpayment?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Mills has been employed by DOC for approximately four years, and was employed by DOC as of the date of hearing. Due to human error in implementing a new payroll system (KRONOS), on March 17, 2017, Ms. Mills was overpaid in the amount of $494.01. The error affected over 5,000 employees of DOC. To address the overpayment, DOC corrected the error by deducting $247.01 from Ms. Mills’ regular paycheck of April 27, 2017, and $247.00 from Ms. Mills’ regular paycheck of May 12, 2017, for a total adjustment of $494.01. Due to the erroneous overpayment, an excess amount of federal income tax withholding ($155.65) was withheld from Ms. Mills’ paycheck of March 17, 2017. Dave Vermette, DOC’s senior personnel manager, attempted to determine whether it was possible to correct the excess federal income tax withheld by reducing future federal tax withholding during the remainder of 2017. Unfortunately, it was determined that such an adjustment could not be made. To address Ms. Mills’ concerns that the erroneous overpayment might affect her eligibility for means-tested public assistance, on June 1, 2017, DOC provided Ms. Mills with a letter explaining the overpayment so that Ms. Mills could show it to any of the agencies from which she receives benefits based on her income. The letter made clear that Ms. Mills was in no way responsible for the overpayment and offered to respond to any questions that other agencies might have about the incident. The June 1, 2017, DOC letter confirmed that, as of that date, Ms. Mills’ year-to-date earnings statement was correct. At hearing, Ms. Mills testified that she was concerned that the overpayment might jeopardize her eligibility for assistance from the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). However, at hearing she presented no evidence that her eligibility would, in fact, be affected. If in the future Ms. Mills’ eligibility for assistance from DCF is adversely affected by DOC’s overpayment error, she will have an opportunity at that time to contest DCF’s determination pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 120, Florida Statutes. DOC did not purposely overpay Ms. Mills, and the amount of the overpayment was quickly recouped by DOC. DOC has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate any potential effects of the overpayment error. The excess federal income tax withholding will be recovered by Ms. Mills when she files her 2017 federal income tax return. Other than the speculative effect on Ms. Mills’ eligibility for DCF assistance, Ms. Mills did not establish that she had suffered injury in fact as a result of the overpayment error. At hearing, and in her PRO, Ms. Mills was non-specific about the relief that she was requesting. In her PRO, Ms. Mills stated that she “respects this court’s ability and duty to determine an appropriate final order based on all information related to this case.” She went on to state that if there is a monetary award, it should in no way be considered to be additional income accruing to her. Ms. Mills failed to prove that she had suffered any injury as the result of the DOC error. Thus, even if the undersigned was inclined to recommend monetary relief, there is no basis in this record upon which to determine an appropriate monetary award.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition filed by Nancy E. Mills be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 18th day of January, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Mills 191 Nursery Road Monticello, Florida 32344 (eServed) Maria Shameem Dinkins, Esquire Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie L. Jones, Secretary Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 (eServed) Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Prior to May, 1983, Camelot Gulfside Interval Vacations, Inc. routinely made monthly payments of the Florida sales and use tax. Apparently during this period of time, the Department of Revenue sent preprinted forms to Camelot on a monthly basis and Camelot used these forms for remittance of the tax. During the months May, 1983, through April, 1985, inclusive, Camelot made no monthly payments of the Florida sales and use tax. During this same period of time, Camelot did not receive forms from the Department of Revenue for the monthly remittance. It cannot be determined from the record whether the cessation of receipt of forms occurred because Camelot failed to send in the monthly payments, or whether the forms ceased to be received independently of Camelot's failure to pay. The total amount of taxes due and paid late was $11,481.69. Ms. Margaret Thompson became the office manager of Camelot in May of 1983. The prior office manager failed to tell her that she had to pay the Florida sales and use tax on a monthly basis. Ms. Thompson was supervised by Mr. Alex Minden, who was present in the St. Petersburg Beach office on a day-to- day basis both prior to May, 1983, and during the period when no sales and use tax was paid. The books of Camelot Gulfside Interval Vacations, Inc. are kept in Toronto, Canada, pursuant to information sent to Toronto by the office in St. Petersburg Beach. In May, 1985, the Toronto office discovered that sales and use tax had previously been routinely paid, but had not been paid for the above periods. Upon investigation, it further discovered that such tax was due and owing. By letter from Mr. Minden, Camelot thus wrote the Department of Revenue on June 11, 1985, to advise it that it owed back taxes. Accompanying the letter was a check for $11,481.69 in full payment. Hearing Officer's Ex. 1. In December, 1985, the Department of Revenue gave notice to Camelot that $3,788.53 was due as penalties and interest. The computation of this amount is not in dispute. Camelot immediately paid the amount assessed as penalties and interest, but previously had requested waiver and timely requested a formal administrative hearing to seek a waiver of penalties and interest. During the period of time that it failed to make monthly sales and use tax payments, Camelot was not notified by the Department of Revenue that payments were overdue and owing. As discussed above, it was Camelot itself that brought the problem to the attention of the Department of Revenue.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter its final order denying any waiver of interest paid, but granting a waiver to the taxpayer of 50 percent of the amount of the penalties paid as an overpayment of such tax, and crediting such amount on future assessments. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Randy Miller, Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 William D. Townsend, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 J. Gordon Alexander, President Camelot Gulfside Interval Vacations, Inc. 1801 Gulf way St. Petersburg Beach, Florida 33706-4297
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 2012, Luca Weedo’s natural mother, who was 30 weeks pregnant with Luca, was walking on the sidewalk on the east shoulder of Airport Pulling Road in Naples, Florida. At the same time, a Jeep Wrangler was traveling on Airport Pulling Road. As the Jeep Wrangler approached Luca’s natural mother, the left front tire and wheel separated from the Jeep Wrangler. The separated wheel bounced along the roadway at a high rate of speed, crossing the median and northbound lane of Airport Pulling Road. The wheel approached Luca’s natural mother at such a high rate of speed that she was unable to avoid it. She was struck by the wheel and knocked to the ground, which caused her to lose consciousness and suffer a ruptured placenta. Luca’s natural mother was transported to Lee Memorial Hospital. Upon admission, she underwent emergency surgery due to abdominal trauma. Luca was delivered via emergency C-section. Luca was born with extreme fetal immaturity and catastrophic brain damage. Luca remained in the hospital for three months, undergoing numerous medical procedures associated with his serious medical needs and brain damage. Luca now suffers from catastrophic brain damage and a seizure disorder that causes him to have multiple seizures every day. He is unable to ambulate, speak, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Prior to Luca’s birth, his natural mother had decided to place Luca up for adoption. Accordingly, when Luca was discharged from the hospital, the Florida Department of Children and Families asked Debra and Kenneth Weedo to take Luca into their home as a foster child. Kenneth Weedo is a retired truck driver and his wife Debra is a foster parent for medically needy children. Debra and Kenneth Weedo took Luca into their home and adopted him on May 2, 2013. Luca’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by Medicaid, which provided $319,188.20 in benefits. This $319,188.20 paid by Medicaid constituted Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Luca, through his parents and guardians, Debra and Kenneth Weedo, brought a personal injury action to recover all his damages. The lawsuit was initially brought against the owner/driver of the Jeep Wrangler. However, through discovery, it was determined that the party responsible for the wheel separating from the Jeep Wrangler was the tire and rim shop that installed the wheel on the Jeep Wrangler approximately a year prior to the accident (“Tire Shop”). The Tire Shop maintained insurance with a policy limit of $1 million. The Tire Shop’s insurance company tendered the $1 million insurance policy limit, which was accepted by Debra and Kenneth Weedo in settlement of Luca’s claim for damages against the Tire Shop. The General Release and Hold Harmless Agreement (“Release”), executed on December 21, 2015, memorialized the settlement with the Tire Shop as follows, in relevant part: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for all of the damages that he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Second Parties without regard to this settlement only, compensating LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO has alleged his damages have a value in excess of $25,000,000, of which $319,188.20 represents LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s injuries and allegations, $12,767.53 of this settlement has been allocated to LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that this allocation is reasonable and proportionate based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s damages. Further, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO acknowledges that he may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses that LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO will incur in the future. However, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that his family and/or others on his behalf have not made payments in the past or in advance for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s future medical care and LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, it is LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s contention that no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Luca was a minor, Court approval of the settlement was required. Accordingly, on February 17, 2016, Collier County Circuit Court Judge James Shenko approved the settlement by entering an Agreed Order on Petitioner’s Unopposed Petition to Approve Minor’s Settlement. As a condition of his eligibility to receive Medicaid benefits, Luca assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third-parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. AHCA was notified of Luca’s personal injury action during its pendency. Through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, AHCA has asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $314,747.23 against Luca’s cause of action and settlement of the personal injury action. This is the amount that the Medicaid program spent on behalf of Luca for his past medical expenses.2/ Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) requires that AHCA be reimbursed for the full $314,747.23 Medicaid lien. Neither Luca nor others on his behalf made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care. No claim for damages was made for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Debra Ann Weedo attended the final hearing along with Luca. Ms. Weedo is a foster parent for medically needy children. She testified that she currently has four children in her home: three-year-old Luca; a six-year-old in more or less the same condition as Luca; a five-year-old who is “basically normal”; and an autistic eight-year-old. Ms. Weedo first met Luca in the hospital during his post-birth hospitalization. She was asked to take him as a foster child and visited him several times in the hospital before taking him home at age three months. Ms. Weedo stated that when she brought Luca home, the whole family fell in love with him and “he became our family.” As soon as it was possible, Ms. Weedo and her husband adopted Luca. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca’s siblings interact with him and that Luca knows the voices of his caregivers and “will kind of try to talk to us.” At the hearing, the undersigned observed that Luca is somewhat aware of his surroundings and responsive to voices. Ms. Weedo testified that her family does everything together. Luca travels, goes on vacations, and goes out to eat as part of the family. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca requires 24-hour supervision and that his condition will become progressively worse as he ages. Luca has been on oxygen since December 2014. He must use a BiPAP (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) machine when he sleeps because the oxygen saturation level in his blood tends to be perilously low. He receives his nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. Civil trial attorney Todd Rosen testified on behalf of Petitioner as a fact witness and an expert on the valuation of damages. Mr. Rosen has been an attorney for 15 years and is the principal of the Todd Rosen Law Group in Coral Gables. Mr. Rosen stated that his practice is exclusively devoted to representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases. Mr. Rosen is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Florida Justice Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, and the Dade County Bar Association. Mr. Rosen has handled many jury trials and has represented plaintiffs who have suffered catastrophic brain injuries. A daily part of his practice is to assess the value of damages to injured persons. He stays abreast of jury verdicts in his area and routinely “round-tables” legal issues and damage valuations with other attorneys. Mr. Rosen testified that he was hired by Luca Weedo’s parents to investigate the potential claims they might have on behalf of their son. Mr. Rosen reviewed thousands of pages of Luca’s medical records, the accident report, and insurance policies for the defendants. The records indicated that Luca suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of placental abruption and that this injury had a permanent and devastating impact on the child’s life. Mr. Rosen explained that he could not file a lawsuit until the adoption process was complete, about eight months after the accident. He initially brought the suit against the driver of the Jeep, who had only PIP and property damage insurance and no collectable assets. Mr. Rosen interviewed the Jeep owner and learned the name of the Tire Shop. He made a demand for payment of the Tire Shop’s $1 million insurance policy. The full policy amount was tendered very soon after Mr. Rosen’s demand. Mr. Rosen testified that no life care plan or economist’s report was prepared in this case because the case settled so quickly. He believed that it would have been imprudent to spend money out of the $1 million settlement on a life care plan when the Weedos were not facing the prospect of a jury trial. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca’s past medical care related to the accident was paid by Medicaid. He testified that Medicaid provided $319,188.20 in benefits, representing Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca, or others on his behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for future medical care and no claim was brought to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. Mr. Rosen opined that Luca’s damages had a value “well in excess of” $25 million. Mr. Rosen explained that based on his experience in other cases, he believed the value of Luca’s future life care needs “would be well in excess of at least 10 to 15 million dollars” and that Luca’s non-economic damages would have a high value. Mr. Rosen noted that a jury would also take into account how “wonderful” Debra and Kenneth Weedo are to have devoted their lives to caring for Luca and other children in similar circumstances. Mr. Rosen believed that the $25 million valuation on Luca’s damages was “very conservative.” Mr. Rosen stated that the Tire Shop’s insurance counsel believed they had a strong argument that the owner of the Jeep must have done something to the tires after the Tire Shop put them on the car. However, despite the contested liability, the insurance company readily agreed during informal settlement discussions to pay the policy limits because the lawyers believed they were facing a verdict of up to $50 million. Mr. Rosen testified that the biggest cost factor in assessing Luca’s damages is the 24-hour attendant care that he will require for the rest of his life. Depending on how many caregivers are employed, the skill level required, and the location, attendant care may range from $25 to $40 per hour. Mr. Rosen estimated that a life care plan for Luca would be in the neighborhood of $10 million, including attendant care, nursing, and medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the $1 million settlement did not come close to fully compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Based on the conservative valuation of all Luca’s damages at $25 million, the $1 million settlement represented a recovery of four percent of the value of Luca’s damages. Mr. Rosen testified that because Luca only recovered four percent of the value of his damages in the settlement, he only recovered four percent of his $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53.3/ Mr. Rosen noted that the settling parties agreed in the Release that Luca’s damages had a value in excess of $25 million, as well as to the allocation of $12,767.53 to past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and more than fair because it was based on a conservative estimate of Luca’s damages. He stated, “Me, personally, I believe it should be less, but yes, that is fair just being conservative.” Mr. Rosen testified that because no claim was made to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care, no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. He noted that the parties agreed in the Release that no claim was made for reimbursement of past payments for future medical care, and no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Luca was a minor, court approval of his settlement was required. The court appointed another experienced attorney to act as Luca’s Guardian ad Litem to review the terms of the settlement and make a report to the court as to its appropriateness. The Guardian ad Litem recommended approval of the settlement, and the court adopted that recommendation. Also testifying on behalf of Petitioner as an expert in the valuation of damages was R. Vinson Barrett, a partner in the Tallahassee firm of Barrett, Fasig and Brooks, which Mr. Barrett described as a mid-sized firm that exclusively undertakes personal injury and products liability cases. Mr. Barrett stated that he has been a trial lawyer for 40 years and for the last 15 years has confined his practice to medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability cases. Mr. Barrett testified that he has done many jury trials. He discussed the importance of accurately estimating the value of the damages suffered by his clients because of the heavy investment that a trial firm must make in a complex case. Mr. Barrett stated that a firm can easily spend a quarter of a million dollars on experts and discovery, as well as life care plans, economic analyses, and vocational rehabilitation analyses, among other items required to establish damages. He stated that it is essential not to spend so much money in putting on the case that the client has nothing left after the verdict. Mr. Barrett stated that he has reviewed dozens of life care plans and economist reports, many for children with the same kind of injuries suffered by Luca Weedo. Mr. Barrett testified that he was familiar with Luca’s injuries and had reviewed the accident report, hospital birth records, records from a second hospitalization, medical records from Luca’s neurologist, the Guardian ad Litem report, the court order approving the settlement, Mr. Rosen’s demand letter to the insurance carrier, and each of Petitioner’s exhibits. He had also spoken to Debra Weedo by phone concerning Luca’s medical condition. Mr. Barrett gave a detailed explanation of Luca’s injuries and extent of his disability. He concluded that Luca’s injury “is as bad an injury as you can possibly receive and stay alive . . . . It could not be more catastrophic.” The medical records indicate that Luca will not get better and his prognosis is poor. Mr. Barrett opined that Luca’s life care plan alone would probably exceed $25 million. He conceded “that seems like a huge, huge, huge amount of money,” but explained that it really is not such a large sum when one considers that Luca is supposed to have 24-hour attendant care throughout his lifetime. Life care plans are not limited to the cost of services provided by Medicaid, which is a safety net that “takes care of things that are absolutely essential to keep on breathing.” However, Medicaid does not cover many things that medically needy children require for quality of life, such as wheelchair-equipped vans. The life care plan includes all of the child’s needs. Mr. Barrett testified that a life care planner accounts for every cost, “pill by pill, wheelchair replacement by wheelchair replacement,” then reduces it to present value. Mr. Barrett testified that based on his experience working with life care planners in trial preparation, and his extensive experience in evaluating damages in cases similar to that of Luca Weedo, he had no doubt that $25 million is a conservative estimate of Luca’s pure losses. Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement did not come close to compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Using $25 million as the conservative measure of all his damages, Luca had recovered only four percent of the value of his damages. Mr. Barrett testified that “by equity and basically, now by federal law, you look at the same ratio for the lien that you look at [for] the claimant.” Accordingly, Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement provided Luca with only four percent of Medicaid’s $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53. Mr. Barrett testified that the settling parties’ allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and conservative. Both Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett testified at some length about comparable jury verdicts and prior DOAH Medicaid lien cases involving children with catastrophic brain injuries. This discussion had some value in establishing that $25 million was by no means an unreasonable estimate of Luca Weedo’s damages, but was secondary and supplemental to the directly expressed expert opinions of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett. AHCA presented the testimony of attorney James Bruner, who was accepted as an expert for the limited purpose of comparing the jury verdicts in the cases cited by Petitioner to the facts of the instant case. Mr. Bruner correctly noted that it can be misleading to cite the numbers from a jury verdict without reference to later reductions made on appeal or via settlement pending appeal. Mr. Bruner also effectively demonstrated that there is never a precise correlation between the facts of one case and those of another, and therefore that there cannot be a precise comparison of damages from one case to another.4/ However, the undersigned did not look to the comparative verdicts for such a strict comparison, but simply for the purpose of establishing a range of reasonableness in broadly similar cases. AHCA called no witness to directly contest the valuation of damages made by Mr. Rosen or to offer an alternative methodology to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. No evidence was presented that the settlement agreement was not reasonable given all the circumstances of the case. It does not appear that the parties colluded to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to Medicaid’s payment of costs for Petitioner’s medical care. In fact, the evidence established that the settlement was conservative in its valuation of Petitioner’s claim and that the settling parties could have reasonably apportioned less to Medicaid than they actually did. AHCA was not a party to the settlement of Petitioner’s claim. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee, or $250,000, as well as $8,112.70 in taxable costs, from the $1 million recovery, leaves $741,887.30, half of which is $370,943.65. That figure exceeds the actual amount expended by Medicaid on Petitioner’s medical care. Application of the formula would provide sufficient funds to satisfy the Medicaid lien of $314,747.23. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $25 million total value of the claim was a reasonable, even somewhat conservative, amount. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the strength and sympathy of his case and on the fact that it was limited only by the inability to collect the full amount of the likely judgment, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constituted a fair settlement, including the portion attributed to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1-5, below. Zurich is an insurer domiciled in the State of New York. Zurich is authorized to do insurance business in the State of Florida. Zurich pays insurance premium taxes to the State of Florida. As a foreign insurer doing business in Florida, Zurich is subject to the provisions of Florida's retaliatory tax, Section 624.5091, Florida Statutes. Respondent Department of Revenue (Revenue) is the state agency charged with the duty to implement and enforce Section 624.5091, Florida Statutes. Zurich's interests are substantially affected by Revenue's Rule 12B- 8.016(3)(a)(4), Florida Administrative Code, by virtue of the tax assessment made against Zurich pursuant to the rule. OTHER FACTS Prior to 1989, the Department of Insurance administered insurance taxation. Now, Revenue has that responsibility. Section 213.05, Florida Statutes, directs Revenue to administer provisions of Sections 624.509 through 624.514, Florida Statutes. Section 213.06(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes Revenue to promulgate rules to implement those responsibilities. Rule 12B-8.016 was first promulgated by Revenue in December of 1989 to implement statutory authority of Section 624.429 (currently renumbered as 624.5091). This statute authorized retaliatory taxation against non-domiciled insurers in the amount by which their state of domicile would tax Florida insurers in excess of Florida's comparable tax. The statute provides in pertinent part: When by or pursuant to the laws of any other state or foreign country any taxes, licenses, and other fees, in the aggregate, and any fines, penalties, deposit requirements, or other material obligations, prohibitions, or restrictions are or would be imposed upon Florida insurers or upon the agents or representatives of such insurers, which are in excess of such taxes, licenses, and other fees, in the aggregate, or other obligations, prohibitions, or restrictions directly imposed upon similar insurers, or upon the agents or representatives of such insurers, of such other state or country under the statutes of this state, so long as such laws of such other state or country continue in force or are so applied, the same taxes, licenses, and other fees, in the aggregate, or fines, penalties, deposit requirements, or other material obligations, prohibitions, or restrictions of whatever kind shall be imposed by the department upon the insurers, or upon the agents or representatives of such insurers, of such other state or country doing business or seeking to do business in this state. As it existed in 1989 and currently, the statute contains an exclusionary provision expressly excluding from the retaliatory tax any special purpose assessments in connection with insurance other than property insurance. This exclusionary provision is part of Subsection 3 of the current statute, 624.5091, and reads as follows: (3)This section does not apply as to personal income taxes, nor as to sales or use taxes, nor as to ad valorem taxes on real or personal property, nor as to reimbursement premiums paid to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, nor as to emergency assessments paid to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, nor as to special purpose obligations or assessments imposed in connection with particular kinds of insurance other than property insurance, except that deductions, from premium taxes or other taxes otherwise payable, allowed on account of real estate or personal property taxes paid shall be taken into consideration by the department in determining the propriety and extent of retaliatory action under this section. The parties concede that Revenue's Rule 12B-8.016 accurately tracts the first part of the retaliatory taxation statute. But a subpart of the Rule, 12B- 8.016(3)(a)(4), is challenged by Zurich in this proceeding because that subpart provides for inclusion of the assessment for administration of workers compensation in Florida and comparable assessments in other states. The rule subpart states: (3)(a) Other items which shall be included in the retaliatory calculations are: * * * 4. The workers compensation administrative assessment imposed by s. 440.51, F.S., as well as comparable assessments in other states. The State of Florida imposes assessment on workers compensation carriers such as Zurich in accordance with authority contained in Section 440.51, Florida Statutes, which is entitled "Expenses of Administration." Section 440.51 provides for the pro-rata assessment of all insurers and self- insurers of workers compensation to cover expenses of administering the workers compensation program. The assessment is a "special fund" that does not involve appropriated funds or general state revenues. Zurich's home state of New York imposes a comparable assessment. In accordance with Rule 12B-8.016(3)(a)(4), Florida Administrative Code, Revenue includes calculations for the Worker's Compensation Board Administrative Fund in the state of New York in Zurich's retaliatory tax calculation. In drafting the rule in 1989, Revenue relied upon Attorney General Opinion 057-173, which advised that Florida's Worker's Compensation Administrative Assessment should be considered a "tax" for purposes of retaliatory tax calculation. On this basis, Revenue's rule requires that such assessments be considered as "taxes" and included in the retaliatory tax calculation. However, following the issuance of Attorney General Opinion 057-173, the Florida legislature in 1959 enacted the present Subsection 624.5091(3), Florida Statutes, specifically excluding the consideration of "special purpose obligations or assessments imposed in connection with particular kinds of insurance other than property insurance" in retaliatory tax calculations. Following the 1959 enactment of the exclusionary language contained in Subsection 624.5091(3), Florida Statutes, the Department of Insurance did not include comparable worker compensation assessments of other states. The Department of Insurance administered insurance taxation until 1989. Department of Insurance forms introduced into evidence for 1986 showed that the Florida assessment, pursuant to Section 440.51 Florida Statutes, was treated as a deduction against Florida's premium tax and added back in on the Florida side of the retaliatory tax calculation. But the assessment was not included in a manner to inflate the calculation of the domiciliary state's comparative tax base. When Revenue assumed administration of insurance taxation in 1989, a proposed rule and an emergency rule were promulgated. Neither provided for inclusion of foreign states' special purpose administrative assessments in retaliatory tax calculation. In the course of the promulgation process, the determination to treat the worker compensation administrative assessment as a tax became a part of the rule. The purpose of Florida's retaliatory statute is to influence other states' legislative discretion to lower the tax burden on Florida insurers doing business in those other states. The items to be compared for retaliatory purposes are determined by the legislature and not by Revenue, Revenue auditors, or other states.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner collected and remitted to Respondent the correct amount of sales and use taxes during the audit period from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2007, and, if not, what additional amount of tax plus penalty and interest is due.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner True Blue Pools (Petitioner, taxpayer, or TBP) is a domestic corporation headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida. TBP services, repairs, and renovates swimming pools and constructed some pools during the audit period. Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue (Respondent or DOR), is the agency of state government authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida, pursuant to section 213.05, Florida Statutes.2 DOR is authorized to prescribe the records to be kept by all persons subject to taxes under chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Such persons have a duty to keep and preserve their records, and the records shall be open to examination by DOR or its authorized agents at all reasonable hours pursuant to section 212.12(6), Florida Statutes. DOR is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers and to request information to ascertain their tax liability, if any, pursuant to section 213.34, Florida Statutes. On November 2, 2007, DOR initiated an audit of TBP to determine whether it was properly collecting and remitting sales and use taxes to DOR. The audit period was from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2007. On December 15, 2008, DOR sent TBP its Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (NOI), with schedules, showing that TBP owed to DOR additional sales and use taxes in the amount of $113,632.17, penalty in the amount of $28,406.05, and interest through December 16, 2008, in the amount of $34,546.59, making a total assessment in the amount of $176,586.81. On October 26, 2009, DOR issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment. TBP timely challenged the Notice of Proposed Assessment, filing its petition with DOR and requesting an administrative hearing. Subsequent to the petition being filed, additional documentation was provided by TBP resulting in a revision to the tax, interest, and penalty amount due. DOR's revised work papers, dated May 27, 2010, claim Petitioner owes $64,430.83 in tax, $16,107.71 in penalty, and interest through May 27, 2010, in the amount of $27,071.99, with an assessment of $107,610.53. The assessed penalty, $16,107.71, was calculated after 25% of the penalty was waived, pursuant to subsection 213.21(3)(a), Florida Statutes, based on DOR's determination that there is no evidence of willful negligence, willful neglect, or fraud. The audit was conducted to determine liability in four categories: improper sales tax exemptions, unpaid sales taxes for taxable expenses, unpaid use taxes on fixed assets, and unpaid use taxes on taxable materials used to fulfill contracts to improve real property. Sales Tax Exemptions Due to the large volume of invoices and other records, the auditor conducted a random sampling of invoices for three months during the audit period, October 2004, January 2005, and September 2007.3 If no sales tax was collected and the Petitioner claimed that the transaction was exempt from the requirement to pay taxes, the auditor looked for proof that either the TBP customer was an exempt organization, for example, a school or a church, or that TBP had provided its suppliers with a DOR Form DR-13 to exempt from taxes products acquired for resale. In the absence proof of either type of exemption, DOR assumed taxes should have been paid. Using the difference between taxes collected and taxes due for the three months, the auditor determined that the percentage of error was .016521. When .016521 was applied to total sales of $1,485,890.79 for the 36-month audit period, the results showed that an additional $24,548.41 in sales taxes should have been collected from customers, and is due from TBP. Although a business is required to pay taxes for the materials it purchases to use in its business, it is not required to collect taxes from its customers when it enters into lump sum contracts to perform a service for customers. At least one invoice for $9,500.00 that the auditor treated as an improper exemption was, in fact, a partial payment on a lump-sum contract. The invoice referenced a "shotcrete draw," which represented the collection of funds after the concrete part of pool construction was completed. TBP is not required to collect taxes when it uses lump-sum contracts. Other invoices for pool repair and services were also mischaracterized as exempt by the TBP, but it is not clear that all were payments related to lump-sum contracts. DOR's auditor, nevertheless, testified as follows: With the knowledge that I have for True Blue Pools, being a lump-sum contractor, True Blue Pools should not charge their customer any sales tax. Transcript at pages 67-68. DOR concedes that some of TBP's transactions are also exempt from taxes as improvements to real property. In its Proposed Recommended Order, DOR asserted that TBP's use of the term "improvements to real property" is overbroad, but it did not specify how or why this is the case. During cross- examination of the owner of TBP, only one invoice for $500.00 for leak detection on the Delgado property was shown to have been for a service rather than for swimming pool construction. Taxable Expenses DOR audited TBP's purchases of tangible personal property used in the daily operation of its business. The products included chlorine and other chemicals, office supplies, and vehicle parts, expenses, and repairs. The ledger for a 12- month period, calendar year 2006, showed an average monthly additional tax due of $111.18, or a total of $4,002.48 in additional taxes for the 36-month audit period. As noted in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, "[t]he representative of TBP did not dispute DOR's allegation that no tax may have been paid on the purchase of all of these items " Fixed Assets TBP's list of fixed assets was taken from the depreciation schedule on Internal Revenue Service Form 4562. The items listed are computer- and software-related. TBP provided no proof that it had paid a use tax. The additional tax due equals $419.94. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order includes the statement that "[a]gain, the representative of TBP did not dispute DOR's allegation that no tax may have been paid on the purchase of these items " Taxable Materials Taxable materials, those purchased to fulfill a contract to improve real property, included items used to build, renovate, and repair pools. The items included concrete, meters, drains, and valves. For the 12-month sample period, calendar year 2006, TBP failed to pay taxes on material purchases in the total amount of $168,310.05, or an average of $14,078.96 a month. For the 36-month audit period, the total of the purchases was $506,842.56. With a 6 percent tax due for the state and 1 percent for the county, the total additional tax due on materials is $35,460.00. TBP conceded that it improperly used a resale exemption to purchase taxable materials from suppliers without paying taxes. The materials were used to provide services and were not resold. Acknowledging again that TBP uses lump-sum contracts, this time to support the collection of additional taxes, the auditor testified as follows: And the law states that the taxpayer's [sic] an ultimate consumer of all materials purchased to fulfill a lump-sum contract, and that's what they told me they operate under, a lump-sum contract. Transcript at page 58. At the hearing, TBP used its actual profit and loss statement to show that the cost of goods it sold (general purchases and taxable materials) in the amounts of $18,360.77 in October 2004, $8,519.22 in January 2005, and $4,818.65 in September 2007. Corresponding taxes for each of those months should have been $1,285.25, $596.35, and $337.31, or an average of $739.63 a month, or a total of $26,626.68 for 36 months. The goods that it sold were not at issue in the audit of taxable materials, rather it was TBP's purchases from vendors that should have been taxed that resulted in DOR's audit results. Total Additional Sales and Use Taxes Due The three categories of additional taxes due, $4,002.48 for taxable expenses, $419.94 for fixed assets, and $35,460.00 for taxable materials, equal $39,882.42 in additional taxes due during the audit period. Taxes Paid TBP filed DOR Forms DR-15, monthly sales and use tax reporting forms, and paid sales and use taxes during the audit period. For the sample months used by DOR to examine sales tax exemptions, TBP paid $1,839.10 in taxes in October 2004, $1,672.73 in January 2005, and $1,418.13 in September 2007. Using the three months to calculate an average, extended to 36 months, it is likely that TBP paid $59,712 in taxes. TBP asserted that DOR was required to, but did not, offset the deficiency of $39,882.42, by what appears to be an overpayment of $59,712.00 in sales and use taxes. Other than pointing out that the amount reported on the DR-15s differed, being sometimes more and sometimes less than the amount shown on the profit and loss statements, DOR did not dispute TBP's claim that it had paid sales and use taxes. TBP's representative explained that end-of-the-year adjustments for additional collections or for bad debt could cause the amounts on the DR-15s and profit and loss statements to differ. With regard to the taxes paid, DOR took the following position in its Proposed Recommended Order: Petitioner's DR-15's [sic] for the collection periods October 2004, and January 2005, [and September 2007] (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) do reflect sales tax being collected and remitted to DOR. DOR does not allege that Petitioner never paid tax on its purchases, or made bona fide exempt sales for which no tax was collected. DOR's audit findings identify just those which occurred within the sample period, scheduled in the auditor's workpapers, and applied over the entire audit period. The DR-15s are taken from the sample months selected by DOR within the audit period, and DOR does not address TBP's claim that a set off for taxes paid was mandatory, pursuant to subsection 213.34(4), Florida Statutes. Using the audit schedules, DOR showed credit for taxes paid in the amounts of $20.63 for taxable expenses, $0 for fixed assets, and $24.31 in state taxes and $1.03 for county taxes on taxable materials. The amounts are far less that the $59,712.00 in sales/use taxes TBP showed that it paid during the audit period.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue issue a final order dismissing the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes dated December 15, 2010. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 20th day of January, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner owes additional sales and use tax, interest, and penalties, pursuant to a Notice of Proposed Assessment.
Findings Of Fact Ivan Soberal is the president and sole owner of Petitioner. Mr. Soberal started the business of Cycle Ivan's 12 years ago. At first, he operated as a sole proprietorship. He incorporated the business in 1997. This case commenced with Respondent's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Assessment dated October 23, 2002. The Notice of Proposed Assessment proposes the assessment of $26,917.69 in additional sales tax, $13,458.88 in penalty, and $9,417.61 in interest through October 23, 2002, for a total of $49,794.18. The notice warns: "If you choose to request either an administrative hearing or judicial proceeding, your request must be filed no later than FEBRUARY 20, 2003 or 60 days from the date the assessment becomes a Final Assessment." The notice adds: "The petition for an administrative hearing must be filed with the Department." Petitioner requested an administrative hearing by letter dated February 20, 2003, and received by, and filed with, Respondent on February 24, 2003. The audit period in this case is December 1, 1996, through November 30, 2001. During this time, Petitioner's business has been the sale and repair of motorcycles and scooters. Petitioner does not sell any new motorized vehicles with an engine displacement larger than 50 cc because doing so would require a dealer's license. Thus, most of the new motorized vehicles sold by Petitioner are small scooters manufactured in China or Japan. Petitioner sells used motorcycles on consignment. Over the years, Petitioner's business has transformed from primarily repairs to a greater emphasis on consignment sales to the present emphasis on part sales. This is an inadequate-records case. For the most part, the auditor used federal income tax returns and corporate income statements to calculate Petitioner's tax liability. The auditor had no cash register receipts, no journal entries, and limited bank statements (none for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2001 and only two months in 1999 and three months in 2000). During the audit period, Petitioner used primarily repair orders to record sales of goods or services. After the audit period, Petitioner computerized its recordkeeping for inventory and sales, but, until then, the available records are extremely limited. Respondent's auditor tried to use samplings of Petitioner's invoices to determine any sales tax deficiencies, but the records were poorly maintained. Taking a sample over the first six months of 2000, the auditor was unable to find invoices totaling thousands of dollars, thus making it appear that Petitioner over-reported taxable sales during these months. Obviously, Petitioner did not over-report taxable sales, but instead had removed invoices from the records that it had provided the auditor. Recognizing the impossibility of reassembling Petitioner's actual taxable sales from its incomplete and nonexistent records, the auditor resorted to Petitioner's federal income tax returns and, for 2001, corporate income statements. By these means, Respondent's auditor determined Petitioner's gross sales, treated them entirely as taxable sales, and calculated the sales tax due on these gross sales. After having done so, the auditor subtracted the taxes actually remitted by Petitioner during the audit period, and the remainder is the sales tax deficiency in this case. Petitioner's basic claim is that many of its sales during the audit period are exempt. However, Petitioner's manner of calculating exempt sales during the audit period was no better than its recordkeeping. Each month, Petitioner subtracted its taxable sales, or what it deemed to be its taxable sales, from its bank deposits, and the remainder was its exempt sales. This method, of course, results in potentially vast overstatements of exempt sales. Petitioner lacks resale or consumer certificates of exemption to support its exemption claims. Mr. Soberal admitted at the hearing that he did not keep records of exempt sales. Exempt sales for Petitioner would also include parts sold to locations outside of the United States, but the nature of Petitioner's business suggests that this type of transaction would not produce significant sales. The only significant exemption in this case is service-only repairs, such as when parts are not required for the repair or the customer provides the parts. The best way of accounting for service-only repairs is to calculate them from the auditor's workpapers for the six months in early 2000 that he sampled. These workpapers identify which invoices are for service only and which invoices include parts, accessories, or other tangible personal property. After calculating the total of service-only repairs, it is possible to derive a fraction with the numerator being the total price of the service-only repairs and the denominator being the total sales reported by Petitioner, which, for each month, was higher than the total gross sales shown on the invoices that Petitioner produced for the auditor. Because this fraction is based on sales during the first half of 2000, which is relatively late in the audit period, it probably represents a fair allocation of service versus sales. As noted above, service transactions predominated early in the audit period, but sales transactions (first of vehicles and later of parts) predominated later in the audit period. Thus, the reduction of total gross sales for the entire audit period by this fraction generated the most reliable estimate of taxable sales during the audit period from available records and still does not reward Petitioner for its failure to maintain records. For January 2000, the service-only repairs total $1052.50 out of total reported sales of $8095.88. For February 2000, the service-only repairs total $1739.99 out of total reported sales of $10,311.55. For March 2000, the service-only repairs total $372.50 out of total reported sales of $11,654.93. For April 2000, the service-only repairs total $796.76 out of total reported sales of $8877.07. For June 2000, the service-only repairs total $595.50 out of total reported sales of $15,970.71. For July 2000, the service-only repairs total $409.95 out of total reported sales of $10,280.58. For these six months, service-only repairs total $4967.20 out of total reported sales of $65,190.72. The resulting reduction is 7.6 percent. Applying the reduction to the sales tax deficiency proposed in the Notice of Proposed Assessment, the resulting tax deficiency is reduced by $2045.74 to a new total of $24,871.95.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's protest as untimely and sustaining the total amount set forth in the Notice of Proposed Assessment dated October 23, 2002, or, in the alternative, reducing the additional sales tax due to $24,871.95 and recalculating the penalty and interest accordingly. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 George B. Grosheim Qualified Representative Accounting Services of South Florida. 1210 Southeast 5th Street Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 Nicholas Bykowsky Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol--Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issue is whether Section 11B(3) of the Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2004 Second Edition, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The petitions filed by FFVA and TIC challenge the validity of Section 11B(3) of the 2004 Manual,4/ which prior to October 1, 2007, was adopted by reference as part of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501(1). Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501(1) was amended effective October 1, 2007, to adopt by reference the Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition ("the 2006 Manual"). Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501(1), as it existed when the petitions were filed and as it currently exists, adopts by reference the 2006 Manual, not the 2004 Manual. The 2004 Manual is no longer adopted by reference as part of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501, or any other rule. AHCA applied the 2004 Manual in the reimbursement dispute initiated by HRMC against FFVA under Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, as reflected in the determination letter issued by AHCA on October 24, 2007, which was attached to FFVA's petition. The reimbursement dispute is the subject of the pending DOAH Case No. 07-5414. AHCA applied the 2004 Manual in a reimbursement dispute involving TIC under Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, as reflected in the determination letter issued by AHCA on January 9, 2008, which was attached to TIC's petition. The reimbursement dispute is the subject of the pending DOAH Case No. 08-0703.
