The Issue Whether, pursuant to section 210.30, Florida Statutes (2016),2/ Petitioner, Jemco Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Payless Tobacco Source (“Jemco”), owes a tax deficiency in the amount of $5,582.73 for the audit period from July 1, 2016, to October 31, 2016, plus $558.27 in penalties and $144.43 in interest, for a total amount due of $6,285.43.
Findings Of Fact Jemco is a Florida corporation that is a distributor of tobacco products in Florida, pursuant to Wholesale License No. WDE1614464. The Division is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing chapter 210, related to the taxation of tobacco products. It is undisputed that Jemco is a distributor of tobacco products in Florida, and that it engaged in the distribution of tobacco products during the period of July 1, 2016, through October 31, 2016. It also is undisputed that Jemco was engaged in the distribution of tobacco products, on which it paid an applicable excise tax and surcharge, before July 1, 2016. As discussed in greater detail below, pursuant to section 210.30, an excise tax is imposed on all tobacco products and on any person engaged in business as a distributor in Florida at the rate of 25 percent of the wholesale sales price of such tobacco products. This excise tax is due to be paid during the month in which the licensed distributor purchases the tobacco products and brings them in state for sale in Florida. Additionally, pursuant to section 210.276, a surcharge is imposed on all tobacco products and on any person engaged in business as a distributor in Florida at the rate of 60 percent of the wholesale sales price of such tobacco products. This surcharge is due to be paid during the month in which the licensed distributor purchases the tobacco products and brings them in state for sale in Florida. In 2016, the Florida Legislature amended the definition of “wholesale sales price” in chapter 210. This amendment, which went into effect on July 1, 2016, changed the assessment of the excise tax and surcharge on the distribution of tobacco products. At some point——and the evidence does not establish when——the Division posted notice of this statutory amendment to the definition of “wholesale sales price” on its website. However, it did not notify distributors, including Jemco, by regular or electronic mail. Consequently, Jemco was unaware of this change in the law. On or about February 16, 2017, Alicia Cortez, an auditor employed by the Division, conducted a tax audit on Jemco for the audit period between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016. In conducting the audit, Cortez reviewed copies of out-of-state supplier invoices for tobacco products sold by the out-of-state suppliers to Jemco. These documents showed the total amount of the sales of tobacco products by out-of-state suppliers to Jemco. She verified these purchases by reviewing Jemco's bank statements. Cortez also reviewed the In-State Tobacco Products Wholesale Dealer's Reports (“Monthly Report”) submitted by Jemco to the Division on a monthly basis. These Monthly Reports, which are submitted in electronic format, show the net taxable purchases, excise tax amount, surcharge amount, and total amount——which consists of the excise tax and surcharge——due for that particular month, as calculated by Jemco. The Monthly Reports also show the amount of excise tax and surcharge paid by Jemco for purchases of tobacco products from out-of-state suppliers for that month. Cortez compared the total amount of taxable purchases of tobacco products, as determined by a review of the out-of- state supplier invoices, with the taxable purchases and excise tax and surcharge paid by Jemco for the particular month, as reported in its Monthly Reports. Here, the audit showed that Jemco did pay some excise tax and surcharge for the period between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016, but that it also had a tax deficiency of $5,583.73 for failure to pay the full amount of the excise tax and surcharge due during the audit period. With the imposition of $144.43 in interest and a penalty of $558.27, Jemco was determined to owe a total of $6,285.43. At Jemco's request, an audit conference between the Division and Jemco was conducted on June 19, 2017. The conference did not result in any change to the total amount of excise tax, surcharge, penalty, and interest that Jemco was determined to owe. As more fully discussed below, pursuant to section 120.80(14), which governs taxpayer contest proceedings under chapter 210, the Division has the initial burden in this proceeding to demonstrate the factual and legal grounds for the tax assessment. Once the Division makes that showing, the entity contesting the assessment——here, Jemco——has the burden to show the assessment was incorrect. Jemco contends that it did not intentionally try to evade paying its taxes due for the audit period, and asserts two grounds for disputing the assessed amount of $6,285.43. First, Jemco contends that, in addition to the period between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016, the audit also covered the months of May and June 2016. However, all of the documentary evidence admitted into the record of this proceeding, including the supplier invoices, Monthly Records, audit report, and auditor's summary sheet clearly shows that the Division audited only the period consisting of July 1, 2016, through October 31, 2016. The evidence shows that the Division purposely chose to audit only this four-month period, rather than a typical six-month audit period, specifically because the amended definition of “wholesale sales price” went into effect on July 1, 2016, and the Division decided to “have a clean cut off” in conducting audits. The evidence clearly and uniformly refutes Jemco's argument that the audit actually covered a six-month period, from May 1, 2016, to October 31, 2016.3/ Jemco also asserts that it should not be held liable for the tax deficiency for the audit period because it was unaware of the amended definition of “wholesale sales price” that went into effect on July 1, 2016. It characterizes the Division's assessment of tax deficiency, penalties, and interest based on the 2016 amendment to that definition as a “got-you attack.” The undersigned finds the testimony of Solis and Hershewsky credible and sympathetic that Jemco never intended to avoid paying the excise taxes and surcharges that it owed under the law, and that Jemco only found out that it was not paying the correct amount of taxes and surcharge for the audit period when the audit commenced in early 2017. It is understandable that a small business like Jemco could be caught unaware of a change in the law——particularly when it was not directly notified by regular or electronic mail of the changed law. However, as a wholesale distributor licensee subject to chapter 210, Jemco is nonetheless presumed to be aware of, and required to follow, this statute in accurately paying its excise taxes and surcharges. To that point, Florida case law states that “[a]s to notice, publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions.” L & L Docs, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Bevs. & Tobacco, 882 So. 2d 512, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(quoting State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla. 1991)). Thus, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Davis v. Strople, 158 Fla. 614, 29 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1947). Here, after the Legislature amended the definition of “wholesale sales price” in 2016, this amended definition was published as part of chapter 2016-220, Laws of Florida, and also as subsection 210.25(14), in the 2016 version of Florida Statutes, which remains in effect to date.4/ Under Florida law, Jemco, as a regulated licensed wholesale distributor of tobacco products, is responsible for being aware of, and complying with, the applicable law——here, the amended definition of “wholesale sales price” that went into effect on July 1, 2016. Nevertheless, it is noted that had the Division directly——by electronic mail or regular mail——informed wholesale distributors of tobacco products of the changed definition of “wholesale sales price” after it was enacted by the Legislature during the 2016 Legislative Session and before it went into effect on July 1, 2016, Jemco——and, presumably other distributors of wholesale tobacco products, some of which are small businesses——would have been informed of the change, so may not have incurred a tax deficiency, with accompanying penalty and interest. This is mentioned for the Division's consideration in informing licensees of significant future changes in the law that could affect their liability for tax deficiencies, penalties, and interest. Based on the foregoing findings, it is determined that the Division met its burden, pursuant to section 120.80(14)(b), to establish the factual and legal grounds on which the assessment of $6,285.43 was made. It is further determined that Jemco did not meet its burden under section 120.80(14)(b) to show that the assessment was incorrect. The clear and convincing evidence supports the Division's imposition of the proposed penalty and interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order imposing an excise tax and surcharge assessment of $6,285.43 on Jemco. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 14th day of February, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (the “Department”), is operating under an unadopted rule in its application of sections 210.276 and 210.30, Florida Statutes, which impose a surcharge and an excise tax, respectively, on tobacco products other than cigarettes or cigars, commonly known as other tobacco products (“OTP”), by calculating “wholesale sales price” as the full invoice price charged by OTP manufacturers to distributors, including any federal excise taxes (“FET”) and shipping charges reflected in the invoice price.
Findings Of Fact Each of the Petitioners is a licensed business in the State of Florida engaged in the business of distributing tobacco products. The Department is the government agency responsible for, inter alia, administering and enforcing chapter 210, Florida Statutes, related to the taxation of tobacco products other than cigarettes and cigars. By way of general background, tobacco products are taxed at both the federal and state levels. The first company to produce or import the tobacco products into the United States must pay the federal government a federal excise tax which is based on weight. 26 U.S.C. § 5702. Similarly, when the tobacco is produced or brought into Florida, Florida OTP tax applies at the rate of 85 percent of the “wholesale sales price.” Technically, Florida OTP tax has two components: an excise tax and surcharge as defined by sections 210.30 and 210.276. Section 210.30 was first enacted in 1985; it imposes a 25-percent tax on OTP. Section 210.276 was enacted in 2009; it levies a 60-percent surcharge on OTP. For convenience, the excise tax and surcharge will be referred to collectively as the OTP tax. The phrase “wholesale sales price” is defined as “the established price for which a manufacturer sells a tobacco product to a distributor, exclusive of any diminution by volume or other discounts.” § 210.25, Fla. Stat. Section 210.25(11) defines "tobacco products" as follows: [L]oose tobacco suitable for smoking; snuff; snuff flour; cavendish; plug and twist tobacco; fine cuts and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps; clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, but ‘tobacco products’ does not include cigarettes . . . or cigars. In 2012, the Second DCA interpreted “wholesale sales price” to apply to the price at which the manufacturer sells tobacco products to the distributor. Micjo, 78 So. 3d at 127. In that case, in which the Second DCA described the dispute as “not complicated,” the Court determined that OTP tax applies only to the charge for tobacco and not to other charges to bring the tobacco to market, such as FET and shipping charges. Id. at 126-127. There are no relevant adopted rules in which the Department has interpreted “wholesale sales price.” State agencies are required to follow the Courts’ interpretations of statutes. See Costarell v. Fla. Unemplmt. App. Comm’n, 916 So. 2d 778, 782 (Fla. 2005). Subsequent to the ruling in Micjo, the Department followed the ruling set forth by the Second DCA and stopped imposing a tax on distributors based upon on FET or shipping charges. Beginning in 2013, the Department commenced enforcing a new “policy” interpreting Micjo to exclude FET and shipping charges only when such charges were separately stated. As a result of this policy, the Department paid some refunds and did not assess OTP tax if the FET and shipping charges were separately stated. The Department began relying upon a new policy in mid- 2013 to the effect that if the domestic manufacturer of the tobacco paid FET when it produced the product, Micjo did not apply and the phrase “wholesale sales price” included non- tobacco charges, such as FET and shipping charges. This was due to the fact that the manufacturer would pass down the cost of the FET and shipping charges to the distributor as part of the “wholesale sales price.” As for foreign manufacturers who did not pay FET, Micjo operated to exclude FET and shipping charges from the taxable base. That is because the distributor who purchased the tobacco products would be responsible for paying the FET separately; it would not be part of the “wholesale sales price.” In other words, the Department’s policy was that “wholesale sales price,” as interpreted by Micjo, applies differently depending on whether the tobacco is manufactured foreign or domestically. The Petitioners seek to invalidate this non-rule policy. The Department confuses wholesale sales price (i.e., “the established price for which a manufacturer sells a tobacco product to a distributor”) with the invoice amount, which may or may not include something other than the price for the tobacco product. The Micjo decision clearly delineates the cost of the tobacco from “the various other distributor invoice costs for reimbursement of FET, shipping costs, and other charges [which are] not part of tobacco.” Micjo, 78 So. 3d at 127. After the Micjo ruling, the Department determined that it would not include FET and shipping charges in its determination of “wholesale sales price” for purposes of calculating OTP taxes. It did not promulgate a rule to that effect, but began nonetheless using the policy uniformly. In early October 2013, when the Department decided to rescind its policy in favor of a new statement of general applicability, it again failed to promulgate the policy as a rule. Instead, it unilaterally began to impose the new policy on all distributors of OTP in the state. It is clear from the record that the current policy is applicable to all distributors and that the policy delineates which distributors must pay taxes based on total invoice amounts, including FET and shipping charges, and which distributors do not have to pay taxes based on those items. It is not clear from the record how the domestic versus foreign manufacturer dynamic was argued to the Micjo Court or in the case from which the appeal arose. Micjo specifically addressed the domestic distributors, but did not make a distinction between domestic and foreign manufacturers. To the extent the Department’s position in the instant case seeks to revise the facts of Micjo, that argument is rejected.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent, Daughtin J. Rhue, operated a business, J's Cut Rate Variety Center, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under a Series 2-APS beverage license, No. 16-731, issued by Petitioner. On May 26, 1983, Beverage Officer D'Ambrosia entered Respondent's place of business on a matter unrelated to the offenses charged here (nonpayment of Florida sales tax). While there, he noticed several packs of cigarettes on the shelf behind the counter which appeared to be nontaxed cigarettes. These cigarettes, which he knew to be untaxed because of the red meter stamp imprinted on the bottom of the packs (tax-paid cigarettes have a black metered stamp on the bottom of the pack), were mixed in with the tax-paid cigarettes offered for sale by Respondent. Mr. D'Ambrosia said nothing about this to Respondent at that time, but then conducted a search elsewhere in the store for other nontaxed cigarettes and could find none. When he came back to the counter again, he found that those packs which bore the red, nontaxed stamp had been reversed on the shelf so that the stamps were not facing outward as they had been previously. Along with Respondent, he examined all the cigarettes on the shelves and found 12 packs that bore the red, nontaxed stamp. There were 7 packs of Lark Lights 100s, 3 packs of Kool Super Lights, 1 pack of Benson & Hedges Menthol and 1 pack of Marlboro. The stamp these packs bore is issued only to the Indians, and cigarettes so marked and stamped are not for resale to non-Indian consumers. No other nontaxed cigarettes were found at that time either on the shelves or elsewhere in the store. However, review of the file on Respondent's license indicates that in April, 1979, Respondent was previously found to have 254 packs of untaxed cigarettes in his store for resale. Action was taken at that time pursuant to stipulation between the parties. Respondent admits the nontaxed cigarettes were on his shelves on May 26, 1983, but denies having known it prior to it being pointed out to him by the beverage agent. He contends that he orders all cigarettes for the store from only two vendors, Pueblo and Wholesale Plus, Inc., and that his employee picks them up from the wholesaler and stocks the shelves. Further, he denies purchasing or stocking the brands untaxed on his shelves. He also denies that the untaxed packs were touched during the visit by Mr. D'Ambrosia, indicating that they were not turned around as alleged. Notwithstanding Respondent's protestations, the untaxed cigarettes were, by his own admission, offered for sale on his shelves The dispute as to whether he knew the untaxed cigarettes were there is resolved against him. He states he worked there every day. It is unlikely he was not aware of their presence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, Series 2-APS, No. 16-731, be suspended for thirty (30) days and that Respondent pay an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Daughtin J. Rhue 1415 N.W. Fifth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On November 2, 1979, petitioner's Officer Favitta visited respondent's premises in order to notify respondent that his beverage license had been suspended for failure to pay a civil penalty. While on the premises, Officer Favitta discovered a display rack full of cigarette packages stamped in red ink with a certain meter number. He confiscated 936 packages of cigarettes so stamped from the display rack. Other packages of cigarettes in a storage room nearby were similarly imprinted. The meter number appearing on each cigarette package had been assigned to Barone Sales, a wholesale dealer in cigarettes who sells cigarettes marked in this fashion to the Seminole Indians. Red ink is used to signify that cigarette tax has not been paid and that the cigarettes are destined for the reservation. Respondent admitted to Officer Favitta buying the cigarettes on the reservation, but argued that this was lawful so long as no more than three cartons were purchased at one time.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent dismiss the notice to show cause. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Watson, Jr., Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael R. Shinn 244 S.W. 3rd Place Dania, Florida 33004
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a licensed distributor of tobacco products, was required to pay an excise tax and surcharge, which the state levies on specified tobacco products, when it regularly brought into Florida shipments of a tobacco-containing product marketed as a cigar wrapper and known as a "blunt wrap."
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Petitioner Brandy's Products, Inc. ("Brandy's"), was a wholesale distributor that supplied more than 2,000 different products to retailers such as gas stations and convenience stores. Among these products were cigarettes, which Brandy's was authorized to sell pursuant to a valid, current permit, and other "tobacco products" besides cigarettes, in accordance with a separate distributor's license, numbered 66-00115. The state of Florida levies an excise tax and a surcharge upon tobacco products. A distributor becomes liable to pay these impositions, e.g., when it brings such goods into the state, or when it ships or transports tobacco products to retailers in the state. Respondent Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department" or "DBPR") is the state agency authorized to administer and enforce the laws relating to the taxation of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The following "tobacco products" are taxable under Florida law: loose tobacco suitable for smoking; snuff; snuff flour; cavendish; plug and twist tobacco; fine cuts and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps; clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing; but "tobacco products" does not include cigarettes, as defined by s. 210.01(1), or cigars. § 210.25(11), Fla. Stat. (defining "tobacco products")(emphasis added). At all relevant times, Brandy's sold a product that is marketed as a cigar wrapper (or rolling paper) and known colloquially as a "blunt wrap." A blunt wrap looks like this1/ (except for the color, which in reality is a shade of brown): Tobacco is one of the raw materials used to manufacture the blunt wraps at issue, which consequently contain tobacco as an ingredient. The dispute at the heart of this case is whether blunt wraps fall within the definition of "tobacco products" set forth above, as the Department argues, which would make them taxable, or outside of that definition, as Brandy's maintains, which would place blunt wraps beyond the reach of the taxing statutes. The Department's position hardened in the first half of 2009 after a period of internal discussion triggered by Congress's enactment of legislation which expanded the Internal Revenue Code's definition of "roll-your-own tobacco" to include tobacco-based wrappers for cigarettes or cigars, thereby subjecting blunt wraps purchased after March 31, 2009, to taxation at the federal level.2/ Although the Florida Legislature had not similarly amended the relevant statutory definition of "tobacco products" (and has not done so as of this writing), the Department decided that blunt wraps are a form of "loose tobacco suitable for smoking" and thus taxable. The Department declared that July 1, 2009, would be the effective date of its new policy, and it began assessing the excise tax and surcharge on purchases of blunt wraps occurring from that day forward.3/ The Department did not adopt a rule reflecting its decision to treat blunt wraps as a taxable tobacco product, nor did the agency give any official notice to licensed distributors such as Brandy's that the state would start taxing blunt wraps on July 1, 2009. Brandy's had purchased blunt wraps for sale to customers in Florida for some years before July 1, 2009, but during that time had not, in connection with such transactions, remitted to the state any amounts for the excise tax and surcharge on tobacco products. This was because, until July 1, 2009, the Department had never applied the term "tobacco products" as defined in section 210.25(11), Florida Statutes, pursuant to an understanding that it includes blunt wraps. Brandy's, which was unaware of the Department's expansive reinterpretation of section 210.25(11) in 2009, continued doing business after July 1 of that year just as it had before that date. Consequently, Brandy's did not remit to the Department any amounts for the Florida excise tax and surcharge on tobacco products based on purchases of blunt wraps during the two-year assessment period at issue, from July 7, 2009, until August 2, 2011. DBPR routinely audits licensed distributors of tobacco products such as Brandy's. At regular, six-month intervals, an auditor conducts an on-site review of the licensee's books and records pertaining to taxable purchases, comparing the documents to the licensee's tax returns. During the assessment period, Brandy's never produced records showing purchases of blunt wraps because Brandy's reasonably believed such purchases remained nontaxable. The auditors never asked to see records relating to blunt wraps, which would have provided Brandy's some notice, at least, of the Department's new policy. The evidence does not support a finding that Brandy's knowingly withheld or concealed relevant information from the auditors. Unbeknownst to Brandy's, sometime in 2011 or 2012 the Department obtained records from an out-of-state company called National Honey Almond ("NHA"), a supplier of Brandy's. The NHA records included invoices showing the quantities and purchase prices of blunt wraps that NHA had delivered to Brandy's from July 2009 through September 2011. The state excise tax and surcharge had not been paid on these purchases. Using the NHA invoices, the Department calculated that sums totaling $15,911.60 in excise taxes and $38,187.72 in surcharges were due from Brandy's on its so-called "untaxed purchases" of blunt wraps from NHA. Together with interest ($12,358.98) and a penalty of $5,409.93, the Department figured that the total liability was $71,868.23. By letter dated March 1, 2013, the Department asked Brandy's to remit payment of this amount within 10 days after receiving the letter. This letter gave Brandy's its first notice that the Department considered blunt wraps to be a taxable tobacco product, but it failed to inform Brandy's that the assessment could be contested. Nevertheless, Brandy's promptly requested an "informal hearing" and tendered a token payment of $1,500 to show good faith. Following that, the Department——without first conducting a hearing——sent Brandy's a letter dated April 4, 2014, in which the Department's "final request" for payment of $70,368.23 was made. Once again, the Department neglected to advise Brandy's of its right to challenge the demand. Brandy's then filed a written protest of the assessment, by letter dated April 11, 2014. This led to an audit assessment conference on May 13, 2014, at which the Department stuck to its guns. On May 19, 2014, the Department issued its "Notice of Decision and Final Audit Assessment," which demanded that Brandy's pay $70,368.23 within 10 days. The Notice informed Brandy's of its right to request a judicial proceeding or administrative hearing to contest the assessment. Brandy's timely initiated this administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order setting aside the assessment against Brandy's for the excise taxes and surcharges on tobacco products that the Department alleged were due, together with interest and a penalty, on purchases of blunt wraps that Brandy's had made between July 7, 2009, and August 2, 2011. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2015.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 2nd day of April, 1976, the Respondent, Charter Distributing Company, licensed under the Cigarette Laws, did unlawfully attempt to evade or defeat the state tax by attempting to gain a cigarette tax rebate on unstamped cigarettes, contrary to s. 210.18(1), F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, Charter Distributing Company was licensed under License No. 26-106, CWD, with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On April 2, 1976, Mr. Jesse Bob Cooper, an Excise Auditor II, with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage went to the licensed premises at 975 Broad Street, Jacksonville, Florida to cancel certain cigarette imprints to enable the licensee to get a refund of cigarette taxes paid. Those cigarettes upon which the imprints were to be cancelled were cigarettes which were taken out of commercial circulation because they were stale. These cigarettes were part of a quantity of cigarettes which were being returned by manufacturers representatives of the various cigarette companies to Charter Distributing Company. The arrangement was to have the cigarette company representative bring the cigarettes into the warehouse area and stack those cigarettes in a "dump area" and receive credit for them. The amounts being brought in by the manufacturers representatives were from 30 to 250 cartons on each occasion. The president of the Respondent, William Moore, would then ask the manufacturers representative if the cigarettes had the appropriate stamps for cancellation. When he was prepared, he would contact the Petitioner's representative to come over and cancel the cigarettes for refund. On April 2, 1976, when Mr. Cooper arrived to cancel the Cigarettes, the cigarettes were placed on a table and examined for proper stamps. On that date, eleven (11) packs of cigarettes were discovered which had inappropriate stamps. Nine of those packs of cigarettes were meter stamped, that is, had meter imprints that were inappropriate. One pack of the eleven packs had the heat or Addco stamp and the final pack had a hand stamp. Although the latter two packs of cigarettes had the appropriate form of stamp, the cellophane wrapper around the pack had been taped there and the stamps were not correct for those two packs. The process was being conducted by having Mr. Moore cancel the packs of cigarettes that were being examined, while Mr. Cooper witnessed. There was no effort at concealing the inappropriate packages of cigarettes made on the part of Mr. Moore. The eleven packs of cigarettes had been brought in by some undisclosed manufacturer's representative and had not been discovered until the point of checking for tax refunds, which was the activity on April 2, 1976. The Respondent, after discovery of the inappropriate stamps had been made, did not make any further request for tax refund and has not received such refund. Finally, there was no showing that the Respondent had any knowledge of the impropriety of the stamps prior to the discovery on April 2, 1976 when these eleven packs and other cigarettes were being cancelled.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Charter Distributing Company, License No. 26-106, CWB, be released from further responsibility to answer to the Notice to Show Cause herein. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Collette, Esquire Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Stephen D. Busey, Esquire 500 Barnett Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the Respondents purchased cigarettes and alcoholic beverages from other than licensed distributors contrary to statute.
Findings Of Fact On August 21, 2002, Cynthia Britt and Sabrina Maxwell, agents of the Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of the Respondents’ convenience store. At the beginning of the inspection, Britt and Maxwell identified themselves as agents of the Petitioner and asked for access to the area behind the counter and to see Respondents' license. When Agent Britt moved behind the counter, she saw several packages of cigarettes in the overhead storage display that did not bear the State of Florida tax stamp. Agent Britt seized these packages of cigarettes. Agent Britt identified 55 packages of cigarettes she seized as Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit D. The trier of fact examined these cigarettes and returned the exhibit to the Petitioner to secure them as part of the record. Agent Britt asked Ms. Kemp for invoices for the purchase of their cigarettes. These receipts were produced and they were also seized. Agent Britt identified these receipts as Exhibit E, the receipts for purchases from unlicensed distributors, and Exhibit F, the receipts from licensed distributors.1 The receipts reflected that the Respondents had purchased cigarettes for resale from other retailers and from the Navy Exchange. The cigarettes that did not have tax stamps were purchased from the Navy Exchange. Ms. Kemp indicated to the agents that cigarettes were purchased from these retailers and the Navy Exchange because the wholesalers required that they purchase too many, or charged them so much for small quantities that they could buy them more cheaply at retail. In the process of reviewing the receipts for the purchase of the cigarettes, the Agent Maxwell discovered six receipts for the purchase of alcoholic beverages. She conducted a search of the premises and found beverages corresponding to the brands purchased on the receipts; however, there was no way to ascertain whether these beverages were the actual ones purchased.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner destroy the cigarettes seized and impose a fine of $250 on the Respondents for violation of Section 210.18(1), Florida Statutes; and impose a fine of $250 for violation of Section 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes. It is also recommended that the alleged violations of Section 561.14(3), Florida Statutes, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of July, 2002.
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the administrative action and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The offense At all times pertinent hereto, respondent, Rodi Enterprises Corporation d/b/a La Ferrolana Supermarket, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-00094, series 2-APS, for the premises located at 3380 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida. Rolando Nunez is an owner and president of the licensee. On July 22, 1994, Leonard Del Monte, an investigator employed by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, entered the licensed premises to conduct a routine inspection. At that time, Inspector Del Monte discovered nine packages of Benson & Hedges Menthol 100's cigarettes in a display rack over the counter, each of which bore a fraudulent tax indicia and on which the excise tax had not been paid as required by law. Each cigarette package contained twenty individual cigarettes, and such packages, considering their location, were obviously offered for sale to the general public. Apart from the nine packages of untaxed Benson & Hedges Menthol 100's, Inspector Del Monte discovered no other untaxed cigarettes on the premises, which, at the time, contained approximately 300 other packages of cigarettes, as well as approximately 300 cartons of cigarettes, for sale to the general public. Indeed, this is the first occasion in over fifteen years of operation that respondent has ever been cited with a violation, and the first time Inspector Del Monte has ever discovered a violation in the fourteen or fifteen years he has been inspecting the premises. The reason for the offense Ovilio Reyes is a long-time customer of respondent, and purchased a carton of Benson & Hedges Menthol 100's from a vendor who sells, among other things, cigarettes from a lunch truck outside the factory where he works. Since he did not like the menthol taste, Mr. Reyes prevailed upon Mr. Nunez, an owner and president of petitioner, to exchange the nine packages that remained from the carton he had purchased for nine packages of Winston cigarettes. Mr. Nunez noted the stamp on the bottom of the packages, assumed it was valid, and agreed to the exchange. Thereafter, Mr. Nunez placed the packages in the display rack for resale. Having considered the proof, Mr. Nunez' testimony that he believed the packages to carry an appropriate stamp and that he had no intention of selling untaxed cigarettes is credited. Indeed, had Mr. Nunez thought the stamp was a forgery, it is doubtful that he would have placed them in the display rack so that the stamp was plainly visible to a customer or, in this case, an inspector standing at the counter. Moreover, for the untrained, a cursory glance at the stamp would not raise a suspicion as to its validity. It is only when one is apprised, as through the proof in this case, that a tax indicia must be stamped in purple ink as opposed to the black ink used on the subject packages, that the stamp was not affixed evenly on the bottom of each package as it should be, that the stamps used are slightly longer than the standard stamp, that the scallops or ornamental edge around the rectangular stamp did not match the scallop of a valid indicia, and that the subject packages, upon close inspection, contained the phrase "Tax No," as opposed to the proper phrase "Tax Paid," that one would have cause to suspect the legitimacy of the stamp in question. Notable, petitioner has not shown by rule or otherwise that it has advised its licensees in general or respondent in particular of the factors that should be considered in assessing the authenticity of a tax indicia.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the offense as charged, and directing respondent to pay a $50.00 civil penalty and the excise tax of $3.59. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of January 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 4th day of January 1995.
