The Issue Should the Petitioner impose discipline against Respondent, holder of an alcoholic beverage license, for violations of laws pertaining to that license?
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. 47-00190, series 4COP, issued by Petitioner. This license allowed Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises known as Kent's Northside Lounge and Restaurant, located at 1133 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent was the sole holder of that license. Respondent continues to hold the license. Beginning January 1997, and ending April 25, 1997, Petitioner, together with other law enforcement agencies, conducted an investigation of the licensed premises to determine if violations of law involving illegal narcotics were occurring. While involved in this investigation, Petitioner also investigated alleged violations involving tobacco. On January 7, 1997, Gordon Chesney entered the licensed premises. He was acting in the capacity of a paid law enforcement undercover operative. He was not a sworn law enforcement officer. Once in the bar he made the acquaintance of a person identified as "Wild Bill." Wild Bill refers to Bill Ferris, Respondent's bartender. Chip Kirby, another bartender, was also in the licensed premises. When Chesney introduced himself to Ferris, Chesney wanted to know "where the action is" in town. In conversation Chesney asked Ferris "Does it ever snow down here?" This reference was a slang term for cocaine. Ferris responded that "it would snow in a few days." This comment referred to the availability of cocaine. Chesney told Ferris he would like to get some "snow." After their initial meeting, Chesney telephoned Ferris at the bar. Ferris told Chesney to come to the bar. Chesney returned to the bar at around 6:30 p.m. on January 9, 1997. Once in the bar Chesney made contact with Ferris. Ferris took Chesney over to a booth in the premises. At this time there were customers in the bar, approximately ten to fifteen people. The other bartender, Kirby, was also in the premises. Respondent was not in the premises. Ferris referred to "she is not here yet," meaning the person who was supposed to deliver cocaine to Ferris. Ferris then invited Chesney to the bathroom in the premises. Chesney showed Ferris money he had brought to purchase cocaine. Ferris indicated that there wasn't enough money. Chesney promised to bring more money later. Chesney went away from the premises to obtain more money and returned to the bar at around 8:30 p.m. When Chesney first arrived at the bar on January 9, 1997, Ferris had not been on duty as a bartender. When Chesney returned to the bar, Ferris was on duty. When Chesney returned, he told Ferris that he was ready. Ferris replied that "she" would be here any minute. A girl then came into the bar. Ferris talked to her. Ferris then came to a booth and invited Chesney to go outside with Ferris. While at the booth, Ferris asked Chesney if he had the rest of the money. They went outside. Chesney gave money to Ferris. The money given to Ferris was in addition to the money which Chesney had given Ferris in the bathroom. Ferris gave Chesney a small baggie containing what was taken to be cocaine. The exchange of additional money and the baggie was made right outside the door of the premises. Chesney turned over the item that he had purchased from Ferris to Officer Kevin Taylor of the Tallahassee Police Department. In turn Detective Louis Donaldson of that department took custody of the item. On January 15, 1997, Chesney returned to the bar. His purpose was to obtain additional cocaine. Once in the bar Chesney contacted Ferris. Ferris was working behind the bar at the time. Chesney told Ferris he wanted to "get a quarter." This refers to a quantity of cocaine. Ferris told Chesney that "she will be here any minute." Chesney waited about half an hour. Then a girl came in the back door and talked to Ferris. Then Ferris went back to an area of the bar which is a restaurant. In about five minutes Ferris came out with a Styrofoam soup cup. He said "here is your soup." Chesney said "okay." Chesney gave Ferris $300 and walked out of the bar. On this occasion Respondent was in the premises seated at a table behind Chesney. That location was about eight feet from Chesney's location. Other people were seated with the Respondent. On this occasion music was playing. Sometimes the music was loud. Sometimes the music was not loud. Chesney cannot recall whether the music was loud during conversations held with Ferris concerning the purchase of the cocaine. But the conversation between Chesney and Ferris was in a normal tone. Once outside of the premises, Chesney turned his purchase over to an officer. Again Detective Donaldson took custody of the item. Detective Donaldson prepared a property receipt for those items seized on January 9 and 15, 1997, that were purchased by Chesney. The items were temporarily held in custody by the Tallahassee Police Department. Those items were then forwarded to and tested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who having analyzed the items, discovered the presence of cocaine. On January 22, 1997, Chesney reentered the licensed premises with Officer Alan Wayne Davis, Jr., who worked for the Petitioner in an undercover capacity. Chesney introduced Davis to Ferris. Ferris was working as a bartender at that time. Specifically Ferris was serving beer and mixed drinks, and taking money. Because Davis was acting in an undercover capacity, he did not tell Ferris that he, Davis, was a law enforcement officer. Davis never revealed his position as a law enforcement officer to any persons who were the subject of the investigation. In pursuit of his undercover role, Davis told Ferris that he was a member of a motorcycle club. On this date a conversation held in a normal tone involved the subject of cocaine. This refers to a conversation between Davis and Ferris. Davis returned to the bar alone on January 23, 1997. He contacted Ferris who was working as a bartender. They discussed a prior cocaine deal between Ferris and Chesney in a normal tone. On January 23, 1997, Davis met Samuel H. Lewis at the bar. Davis was introduced by Ferris. Lewis was taking bets on the upcoming Superbowl football game. The bets were premised upon placing projected scores on a paper square for a cost of one dollar. The winner was to be determined by the individual who placed the bet and guessed the total score. The game was a game of chance, not skill. Davis gave Lewis five dollars to participate in the betting pool. An envelope of bets containing fifty-seven dollars was available when Lewis began to collect bets. Lewis received about twenty additional signatures (twenty dollars) in the bar representing individual bets. The overall pool had one hundred squares. Respondent was not at the bar on January 23, 1997, when the football pool was held. On January 23, 1997, Davis met Robert Strauss, Respondent's son. Robert Strauss was an employee at the bar. In conversation Davis was asked what kind of business he was in. Davis responded that he was in the business of making money. Before Davis met Robert Strauss, Ferris had asked Davis if Davis sold cigarettes, in that, as Ferris described the matter, Robert Strauss was always looking for a good price on cigarettes. Davis had answered Ferris in the affirmative. This led to the introduction to Robert Strauss. Conversations about cigarettes were open, in normal tones. In discussion Robert Strauss asked Davis if the cigarettes that Davis had for sale had stamps on them. Davis replied in the affirmative. On the other hand, Davis commented to Robert Strauss that the cigarettes were "so hot that you could feel it." Davis intended by his remarks to indicate that the cigarettes that he had were stolen. That intent would create the most likely inference to be gained from Davis' remarks. Davis did not indicate that he was a licensed wholesale cigarette distributor on that occasion or any other occasion. Through conversation Davis and Robert Strauss arrived at a price of eight dollars a carton for cigarettes, a price below the expected value of that merchandise. Robert Strauss asked Davis to bring him a case of cigarettes next Wednesday. Davis agreed to that request. When Robert Strauss made the overture to Davis concerning the purchase of cigarettes, Davis was not in control of cigarettes. To further the investigation, Petitioner purchased cigarettes from a wholesaler, SuperValue Warehouse. Petitioner caused stamps to be attached to those cigarettes. Those stamps were out of circulation and not involved in normal commerce. By this attachment, the impression that was created was that the cigarettes were properly stamped. The cigarettes were then turned over to Davis to be used in furtherance of the investigation. In a later conversation between Ferris and Davis on January 23, 1997, the subject of cocaine was discussed. This conversation took place in the bar. Davis told Ferris that he might want cocaine at a later time. Ferris invited Kirby into the conversation. Kirby tried to tell Davis what a good deal Kirby and Ferris could get Davis on some "coke." This refers to cocaine. At that point in time, Kirby was working at the bar. The price discussed was $750 for a half ounce of cocaine. Kirby indicated that the cocaine would be available Friday and that Davis could come back and purchase the cocaine from Kirby and Ferris. The conversation about cocaine was openly stated. Davis returned to the bar on January 29, 1997. Davis made contact with Ferris who was tending bar, and had a conversation about Davis' failure to purchase cocaine, causing Ferris and Kirby to be "stuck with the coke," trying to sell it to someone else. This conversation was held in a normal tone of voice. Robert Strauss was not at the bar on that occasion. Nonetheless, Ferris told Davis that, Robert, referring to Robert Strauss, wanted to purchase cigarettes. Ferris indicated he would contact Robert Strauss and return to purchase cigarettes from Davis. Ferris then made a telephone call. Ferris then purchased cigarettes from Davis for $100 in return for twelve cartons of Winstons. Those cigarettes sold by Davis on this occasion, and on other occasions, were the cigarettes that Petitioner had placed the out-of-date stamps on, after obtaining the cigarettes from the wholesaler SuperValue Warehouse. Davis returned to the licensed premises on February 5, 1997. While at the bar, Robert Strauss walked out of another part of the bar and yelled to Davis, "Hey, cigarette man, I will be right out." Robert Strauss was approximately twenty feet away from Davis when he made those remarks. Respondent was sitting in one of the booths of the bar at the time. On this visit to the bar, Davis engaged in a conversation with Ferris. Ferris was not on duty at that time. Then Davis spoke with Robert Strauss. Robert Strauss asked Davis what type of cigarettes Davis had brought. Davis replied that he had brought thirty cartons of Marlboro Lights and a Phillieblunt box full of cigars. Robert Strauss asked if the price of the cigarettes was still eight dollars a carton. Davis said yes. The cigarettes were delivered from Davis to Robert Strauss across the counter after Davis obtained the cigarettes from his vehicle. At that time patrons were at the bar. Robert Strauss paid Davis $240 for the cigarettes from the cash register at the bar, by openly handing Davis the money. Robert Strauss then took the cigarettes to a back portion of the premises. Davis purchased one pack of Marlboro Lights back from Robert Strauss for a price of three dollars out of the cigarettes that had just been sold from Davis to Robert Strauss. On this date, Davis also told Robert Strauss that the cigarettes "were so hot that they wouldn't even have to be lit," in conversation concerning the purchase of additional cigarettes beyond that point in time. At the bar, Davis then engaged in a conversation with Ferris about cocaine in a normal tone. Davis returned to the bar on February 12, 1997. At that time Ferris was working behind the bar, Robert Strauss was also on the premises in the kitchen area. Davis told Robert Strauss that he had thirty cartons of Winstons. Robert Strauss told Davis he would give Davis five dollars per carton for all thirty. They agreed. Davis sold Robert Strauss thirty cartons for five dollars each. Davis brought the cigarettes in from his car in a large box and placed them on the edge of the bar in making the exchange. Twelve to fifteen patrons were in the licensed premises. Robert Strauss took the money to pay for the cigarettes from a bank bag near the cash register. The transaction was openly conducted. On that same date Davis discussed with Ferris the purchase of cocaine while Ferris was working behind the bar. The amount discussed was an ounce. To facilitate the purchase, Ferris gave Davis his work and home telephone numbers; these included the number for the bar. Davis returned to the bar on February 19, 1997. Davis contacted Ferris who was working as a bartender. Patrons were in the bar at that time. Ferris asked Davis if Davis had brought the cigarettes for Robert Strauss. Kirby came over to Davis and asked if Davis was still looking to get an ounce, referring to the purchase of cocaine. Davis said yes. Davis gave Kirby $1,400 in cash in furtherance of a purchase. Kirby counted the money while at the bar without attempting to disguise his activities. Kirby put the money in his pocket and went to the business phone in the premises and made a call. Kirby then returned and told Davis he couldn't contact his main supplier, but that he had another source he could get it from who was in the bar. This discussion was held in a regular tone of voice. Kirby left the bar and then returned. Davis was instructed to follow Kirby and Ferris to a back room. Davis followed them to a storage room. Kirby then pulled a bag out of his shirt represented to be cocaine. Davis weighed the substance on scales. While this transaction took place, the parties were concealed by a door. The substance weighed approximately an ounce. When Davis left the licensed premises, he turned the substance over to a case agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). On the same day, Davis sold Robert Strauss thirty cartons of cigarettes delivered to Ferris after Robert Strauss handed Ferris $100 to give to Davis. Davis delivered the cigarettes in a box from the trunk of his vehicle and placed them on the top of the bar during the exchange. Robert Strauss had obtained the money from a bank bag. On February 25, 1997, Ferris paged Davis. Davis called Ferris and Ferris told Davis he would give Davis an ounce of cocaine for $1,320. Davis said he wanted three ounces. An arrangement was made to meet on February 27, 1997, at the bar to carry out the transaction. On February 27, 1997, Davis returned to the bar in the company of a law enforcement officer, Agent Scirpan of the DEA. Davis met with Ferris after walking in the bar. Ferris told Davis to follow him outside. Ferris questioned Davis concerning the possibility that Davis was a cop or affiliated with law enforcement. Davis did not acknowledge his status as a law enforcement officer. They then went to Ferris' truck to count the money that would be used in purchasing cocaine. Respondent was seated at a table in the premises when Davis and Ferris left the premises to go to Ferris' truck. The truck was located by the side of the bar. Davis gave Ferris $4,000. They then went inside the bar. Ferris made a telephone call from the business phone in the premises. Ferris then exited the bar. While in the bar, Davis observed a girl sitting at the bar rolling what appeared to be a cannabis cigarette, known by its appearance to Davis to be cannabis, based upon his experience as a law enforcement officer. Robert Strauss was there at that time two to three feet away. Robert Strauss made no attempt to confront the patron concerning this practice. Davis ordered a pack of Marlboro Lights from the bartender and paid for them. To get the cigarettes, Respondent had to produce the keys to the storage room to obtain the cigarettes purchased. The cigarettes that Davis purchased bore the out-of-date stamp involved with the cigarettes that Davis had sold to Robert Strauss. On that same date an unidentified white male came in offering to sell cartons of cigarettes. The unidentified male was trying to sell cigarettes for ten dollars a carton. At that time Respondent had left the bar. Later Ferris returned to the bar and asked Davis to go outside with him. They got in Davis' car and rode around the block. Ferris gave Davis approximately three ounces of a substance as part of the arrangement to purchase cocaine. This item was turned over to a DEA agent. On March 6, 1997, Davis called Kirby at the bar and ordered an ounce of cocaine. The tone of the conversation was normal. On March 7, 1997, Davis went to the bar and contacted Kirby. Kirby was working. Kirby said the deal was off because of a death in the family. Kirby told Davis that they could talk later about doing one or two "keys" of coke. A "key" refers to a kilo of cocaine. This conversation was held in a normal tone of voice across the bar. On March 17, 1997, Davis called Ferris at the business phone number Ferris had given Davis. The call was about purchasing more cocaine. The phone number used was the number for the licensed premises. An arrangement was made to purchase cocaine of an undisclosed amount on the following Wednesday. On the following Wednesday, which was March 19, 1997, Davis returned to the bar and met with Ferris. Ferris was concerned about the rumor that there was an undercover officer working inside the bar. Davis did not acknowledge his undercover capacity in this conversation. It was decided to wait awhile before the parties did any more business. However, there was a conversation between Davis and Kirby in which Kirby said they could go to Miami and pick up cocaine. This conversation was in a normal tone of voice. As Davis was starting to leave, Robert Strauss approached Davis and asked Davis to bring back some cigarettes when Davis returned. On April 7, 1997, Davis called Ferris and discussed the purchase of one ounce of cocaine on the following Wednesday. This call was made to the telephone within the licensed premises. An agreement was made to purchase an ounce of cocaine, the cost of which was not determined. On April 16, 1997, Davis called the licensed premises and spoke with Kirby about the purchase of an ounce of cocaine. Then Davis went to the licensed premises and contacted Kirby who was working behind the bar. Kirby told Davis that the purchase of cocaine would cost $1,400 an ounce. This conversation was conducted in an open manner. Then Robert Strauss walked out from the back of the bar and asked Davis if Davis "had any hot cigarettes to sell." Davis said "they were all in the trunk." Robert Strauss followed Davis out to Davis' vehicle. In the trunk there were ten cartons of Camels and ten cartons of Marlboro Lights. Robert Strauss carried the cigarettes back into the bar in a box. Robert Strauss put the cigarettes up, went over to the cash register and obtained $100 which was given to Davis. The reference to putting the cigarettes up means that Robert Strauss took them to the storage room. Robert Strauss told Davis that he would buy more cigarettes if Davis would bring them to Robert Strauss. The transaction concerning the purchase of the cigarettes was made with no attempt to conceal the activity. Then Ferris came in and took over Kirby's assignment at the bar. Kirby then sat down next to Davis at the bar. They discussed the purchase of a key of coke, meaning a kilo of cocaine. They discussed that if that amount was broken down, the cost for an ounce would be $700. The purchase was to be made in Miami. This conversation was conducted openly. Davis and Kirby went outside and Davis gave Kirby $1,400 to purchase a smaller amount of cocaine. Kirby returned to the bar. Davis and Kirby then went to Davis' vehicle. Davis took the substance that had been offered as cocaine. This transaction took place after they drove away from the bar. Again, that substance was turned over to an agent with the DEA. On April 22, 1997, Davis called the bar and spoke to Kirby. They discussed the purchase of another ounce of cocaine for the next day. On April 23, 1997, Davis returned to the bar after arranging with Kirby, through a telephone call, to come to the bar. Kirby was tending the bar. Kirby and Davis discussed a cocaine deal. Kirby told Davis that basically all suppliers were sold out of cocaine. Kirby told Davis that some people were offering to sell for as much as $1,600 an ounce. This conversation took place at a little table next to the bar. Patrons were in the premises at that time. The conversation was held in a normal tone. Eventually Kirby told Davis that he had found someone that lives at the Gulf who could get an ounce of cocaine for $1,450. That price was agreed upon. After a person drove up, Kirby commented, "There's my man." At that moment Davis gave Kirby the money. Kirby counted the money. Kirby left the bar and returned. Kirby told Davis to go with Kirby to Kirby's van. They got in the van and drove around the block. Kirby gave Davis an ounce of a substance which was tendered as cocaine. That substance was turned over to an agent of the DEA. Davis returned to the bar on April 24, 1997. He met with Kirby who was tending bar. They discussed the purchase of cocaine. Kirby said he had an ounce of cocaine to sell and asked Davis if he wanted to purchase the cocaine. Davis agreed to purchase the cocaine for $1,400. Davis gave $1,400 to Kirby across the counter. Kirby told Davis to follow him to a bathroom. In the bathroom Kirby handed a substance in aluminum foil to Davis, represented to be cocaine. The substance was turned over to an agent of the DEA. On the same date, Kirby and Davis discussed making a trip to Miami to purchase cocaine, and what it would cost Davis if Kirby delivered the cocaine from Miami, as opposed to Davis and Kirby going to Miami to obtain the cocaine. A price of $32,000 for a kilo of cocaine was discussed. This conversation was held in an open manner. On April 25, 1997, the Tallahassee Police Department served a search warrant on the licensed premises looking for illegal drugs. Petitioner's agency was also involved in the search. During the search, underneath the bar on the right-hand side, an item was discovered, which through a field test revealed the presence of cocaine. The item was wrapped in tin foil. The tin foil was readily visible when standing behind the bar. In addition cigarettes were seized. The item that tested as cocaine in the field test was turned over to the resident agent in charge for the DEA. At the time the search was made on April 25, 1997, Petitioner was investigating the purchase of cigarettes from a non-wholesaler, as well as its interest in the sale of illegal narcotics. On that date, the Petitioner seized the cigarettes that Davis had sold to Respondent's employees. The cigarettes Davis sold had never had taxes remitted to the state of Florida based upon a wholesale transaction. Respondent identified that Kirby and Ferris were part- time bartenders who worked at night. Ferris also worked a Saturday day shift. Ordinarily a shift change to the night shift occurred at 6:00 p.m. Ferris had been a customer of the bar before being hired. Before being hired, Kirby was referred to Respondent by Respondent's friends. Respondent identified that Robert Strauss was more or less the supervisor in charge at the premises when the Respondent was not there. Robert Strauss cooked at the bar a couple of days a week. Robert Strauss was involved with purchasing supplies for the bar. Respondent indicated that Robert Strauss' duties in purchasing during the time in question involved the purchase of cigarettes. Beyond the time of the investigation described, within the last six months prior to the hearing, two employees had been dismissed for suspected drug use. This did not include Messrs. Ferris and Kirby. The dismissal of the other employees was made by Respondent. Respondent's day at the bar runs usually from 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Prior to the events described in the facts, Respondent did not have a policy for his establishment concerning activity involving narcotics. Subsequent to the investigation, there is a written policy prohibiting employee activities involving narcotics. Respondent has no written policies advising his employees what the employees should do if they observe persons engaging in illegal narcotic activities. Respondent says that he explains to his employees verbally that if anyone discusses narcotics at the bar "they are out." Respondent has video cameras to monitor activities in the bar. The manner in which Robert Strauss solicited Davis for the purchase of cigarettes, Davis sold the cigarettes, and Respondent's employees sold the cigarettes obtained from the SuperValue Warehouse, creates the inference of impropriety by Robert Strauss and other employees affiliated with Respondent's licensed premises. The inference of impropriety is to the exclusion of any other inference to be gained from the conduct. The inference is that the cigarettes were not part of ordinary commerce and had questionable origins. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for an ordinary law-abiding person to suspect that the cigarettes which Davis presented to Robert Strauss and others in the premises, as solicited by Robert Strauss, were stolen. Davis billed the cigarettes as outside the bounds of ordinary commerce when describing the cigarettes as "hot." Davis also identified that the cigarettes were being purchased at a price that was more than a good bargain. The price helped in creating the appearance that the cigarettes were not part of legitimate commerce. As stated, the substances purchased by Chesney on January 9 and 15, 1997, were cocaine. The substance found during the search of the premises on April 25, 1997, was cocaine.1
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of counts 1, 2, and 9 through 28, and finding that Respondent did not violate counts 2 through 8, and that imposes a penalty of revocation of license number 47-00190, series 4COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The Department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Statement of the Issue set forth in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order dismissing the subject notice of assessment and jeopardy findings. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of January 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1991.
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 Whether or not on or about October 28, 1976, investigation revealed that the Zig Zag Bar, Inc., d/b/a Zig Zag Pub, failed to notify in writing, the Division of Beverages, of its change of name, 30 days in advance of such change, contrary to s. 561.33, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4, 1976, investigation revealed that the Zig Zag Bar, Inc., d/b/a Zig Zag Pub, did fail to submit and certified copy of the minutes of the stockholders' meeting, changing corporate officers, to the Division of Beverages, in violation of Rule 7A-2.07, F.A.C. Whether or not on or about November 12, 1976, investigation revealed that the Zig Zag Bar, Inc., d/b/a Zig Zag Pub, had entered into an agreement with one Billy Gene McKinney, which agreement relinquished all or part of the management and control of the licensed premises contrary to Rule 7A-3.17, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact The Zig Zag Bar, Inc. is the holder of license number 23-2702, series 2-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license is held to do business under the name Zig Zag Pub, located at 800 Alibaba Avenue, Opa-Locka, Florida. This case arises on the basis of an investigation conducted by Agent James P. Bates, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On October 19, 1976 Agent Bates received information from an unidentified confidential informant that the Zig Zag Pub had been sold or leased to one Billy McKinney, a convicted felon. Having received that information, Bates took action to determine whether the Respondent, Zig Zag Bar, Inc. had entered into an agreement with Billy McKinney, which agreement possibly would have relinquished all or part of the management and control of the licensed premises contrary to Rule 7A-3.17, F.A.C. One aspect of the investigation, was the review of the records maintained by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to determine if Bill McKinney was listed as one of the officers of the subject corporation. This record examination took place in October or November, 1976. This search did not show Bill McKinney being listed as a corporate officer. The corporate officers listed were Phyllis Charlene Henry, President, Sigride Kienle Sowell, also known as Sigride Kienle, Vice-President and Richard M. Knowles, Secretary- Treasurer. Agent Bates went to thee location of the Zig Zag Pub, at 800 Alibaba Avenue, Opa-Locka, Florida, on October 28, 1976. When he arrived he discovered an advertising sign in the front of the licensed premises reflecting the name "Bill's Place". On October 28, 1976 the records of the Petitioner indicated the official name of the licensed premises was Zig Zag Pub. This prompted Agent Bates to make a further inquiry into the true status of the licensed premises, on the subject of ownership and control. Agent Bates checked with the City of Opa-Locka, Florida and discovered that Bill McKinney had completed a questionnaire for an operating license to be held with the City of Opa-Locka, Florida. The license was issued to Zig Zag Pub in the name of Richard M. Knowles; however, the questionnaire application was completed by Bill McKinney who indicated that he was the owner-operator. This information is shown in Petitioner's Exhibits number 1 & number 2 admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is the questionnaire and Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 is the city license. Agent Bates also ascertained that Bill McKinney had obtained a water permit from the City of Opa-Locka for the benefit of the licensed premises. In the course of his investigation, Bates talked to Phyllis Charlene Henry, the named President of the Zig Zag Pub, Inc. Ms. Henry stated that the Zig Zag Pub, Inc. still maintained control of the licensed premises, even though the operating manager and Vice-President Sigride Kienle Sowell had left, leaving McKinney as the manager. Bates went to the licensed premises on November 12, 1976 and found Bill McKinney working behind the bar. McKinney explained that he was the manager of the licensed premises. In checking the business records of the licensed premises, a lease agreement was discovered which was signed between McKinney and Richard M. Knowles as an officer with the Zig Zag Pub, Inc. This lease agreement was a two year agreement with an option for McKinney to become a full partner in the corporation known as Zig Zag Pub, Inc. The agreement also authorized Bill McKinney to take full control to operate the business under the present licenses, one of those licenses being the license being held with the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Petitioner's Exhibit number 3, admitted into evidence is the business contract spoken of. Agent Bates also discovered a number of checks written on an account of Bill McKinney which pertained to expenses of the Zig Zag Pub, Inc. Some of these checks are found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibits number 4 & number 5. Petitioner's Exhibit number 6 is a ledger showing expenditures of the business and reflects entries which correspond to the checks found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit number 4. Petitioner's Exhibit number 7, admitted into evidence, is a composite exhibit containing invoices that are reflected in the ledger and shows that the invoices were made out to Bill's Place, and paid by the Zig Zag Pub or Bill McKinney. Petitioner's Exhibit number 8, admitted into evidence, is a receipt for a water bill charged to the licensed premises and paid by Bill McKinney. In following up the explanation of the sign found on the outside of the licensed premises, showing the name to be "Bill's Place," an invoice was located in the records. This invoice is Petitioner's Exhibit number 9, admitted into evidence, and shows that the sign had been delivered August 21, 1976. Another exhibit showing the connection of Bill Kinney to the licensed premises is a health inspection form made in the name of "Bill's Place" for the licensed premises and acknowledged by Bill McKinney. This is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit number 10, admitted into evidence. Finally, there is a letter from the law firm of Bergstresser and DuVal, which indicates a request for payment of the November, 1976 rent due from the licensed premises under terms of a lease entered into by the principles of Zig Zag Bar, Inc. This letter is addressed to Bill McKinney, and is Petitioner's Exhibit number 11, admitted into evidence. While in the licensed premises on November 12, 1976, Agent Bates discussed McKinney's position with the Zig Zag Bar, Inc. McKinney indicated that he had been the manager since June, 1976. In an effort to determine McKinney's position in the corporation of Zig Zag Bar, Inc., Bates inquired of the Secretary of State, State of Florida. A teletype message was forward to Agent Bates indicating that the corporation had been cancelled for nonpayment of corporate fees. However, this message indicated that the last named officers were shown as Phyllis Charlene Henry, President, Sigride Kinele, Vice President and Richard M. Knowles as Secretary-Treasurer. This is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit number 13, admitted into evidence. On November 19, 1976, the corporation was reinstated upon the payment of its fees. At the time the corporation was reinstated it listed Phyllis C. Henry, President, Kathlene McKinney as Vice-President and Richard M. Knowles as Secretary-Teasurer. Kathlene McKinney is the wife of Bill McKinney. Petitioner's Exhibit number 14, admitted into evidence are the documents showing the reinstatement of corporation and indicates the named officers. The Petitioner had not been made aware of the change of officers, nor received a certified copy of the stockholders' meeting held by the Zig Zag Bar, Inc., which changed the corporate officers. After discovering the change in the corporate officers, Agent Bates met with Richard Knowles and Knowles stated that Sigride Kienle Sowell had been removed as manager and McKinney had been brought in to salvage the Zig Zag Bar, Inc., from its financial difficulties in the licensed premises. Knowles was instructed that he could take action to rectify the problem that he was having and gain compliance with the laws and rules of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. At the date of hearing, Bill McKinney was still acting as the operator of the licensed premises, and the Zig Zag Bar, Inc., had not filed a certified copy of the minutes of the stockholders' meeting changing the corporate officers, to those reflected in the November 19, 1976 reinstatement of the corporation with the Secretary of State of Florida. Furthermore, the name displayed on the sign in front of the licensed premises was "Bill's Place," and not Zig Zag Bar. After concluding his investigation, Agent Bates related his findings to his superiors and this led to the filing of the notice to show cause which is the subject of this hearing. The notice to show cause contains three counts. The first of those counts alleges that on October 28, 1976, it was shown that the Zig Zag Bar, Inc., d/b/a Zig Zag Pub had failed to notify in writing, the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco of its change of name in 30 days in advance of such name change, contrary to s. 561.33, F.S. Specifically, s. 561.33(2) , F.S. states: "no licensee may change the name of his place of business without first giving the Division 30 days' notice in writing of such change." In fact, the name was effectively changed from Zig Zag Pub to "Bill's Place" as discovered on October 28, 1976 and the Petitioner had not been notified 30 days in advance of such change. The Petitioner still has not been notified of such change. The second count of the notice to show cayuse alleges that on or about November 4, 1976 it was discovered that Zig Zag Bar, Inc. d/b/a Zig Zag Pub failed to submit a certified copy of the minutes of the stockholders' meeting changing corporate officers, to the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in violation of Rule 7A-2.07, F.A.C. The pertinent provision of the Rule, is Rule 7A-2.07(2), F.A.C., which states the following: "If any corporation holding a beverage license shall change corporate officers, such corporation shall within 10 days of such change submit a certified copy of the minutes of the stockholders' meeting at which the change in officers was effected to the district office of the district of the Division of Beverage wherein the license held by such corporation is located." The Respondent had changed the Vice-President in its corporation from Sigride Kienle Sowell to Kathlene McKinney, sometime prior to November 19, 1976, as evidenced by their filing with the Secretary of State of Florida. After making this change they failed to submit a certified copy of the minutes of the stockholders' meeting changing the corporate officer to the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco within the allotted 10 day requirement. This change still has not been submitted. The third count in the notice to show cause was an allegation that the investigation on November 12, 1976, revealed that the Zig Zag Bar, Inc., d/b/a Zig Zag Pub, entered into an agreement with Billy Gene McKinney which agreement relinquished all or part of the management and control of the licensed premises and alleged that this was contrary to Rule 7A-3.17, F.A.C. Rule 7A-3.17, F.A.C. contains this language: "All business conducted on the licensed premises under the beverage law shall be managed and controlled at all times by the licensee managed by or his authorized employee or employees. The term "employee," as used herein, shall mean a person who received a salary or wages for services performed, for and in behalf of a licensee, under the exclusive control and direction of the latter. It does not include a lessee, and independent contractor or any person employed by collateral agreement to independently manage and control the said business on the licensed premises. Indicia for determining whether a purported managerial contract conforms to this rule are as follows: The licensee must retain control of the operation of the business. Salary or wages must be paid by the licensee to the manager or employee for conduct of the business under the ultimate direction of the former. Social Security and workmen's compensation coverage must be paid and accounted for by the licensee. The licensee must be responsible for all debts of the business and legally entitled to all incomes therefrom. All alcoholic beverages for the business must be purchased in the licensee's behalf and under the license covering the premises. The licensed premises must be operated for all purposes in the name of the licensee or his legal trade name as distinguished from the name or names of any other person or persons. The licensee must be responsible for all conduct of the business and the license involved must be subject to suspension and revocation for any illegal acts committed on the premises or under the beverage law. Complete ultimate authority for the hiring and dismissal of all employees on the premises must rest with the licensee. The licensee must be primarily responsible for the rent, utilities and insurance covering the premises, and all other incidental expenses occasioned in the operation of the business. The licensee must remain at all times responsible for the maintenance and proper operation of equipment on the premises. The contract must contemplate the formation of the relationship of principal and agent between the licensee and the employee within the limits defined and implied by the contract. A contract wherein the so-called employee or manager pays a fixed sum to the licensee whether from net profits or not would not create the employer/employee relationship as contemplated by the rule. Any agreement woven in such language so as to clothe or disguise the true character of a contract either as a lease or a managerial contract will be shorn in order to effect the intent and purpose of the law and rule in this regard. The Pole Star which will guide the Division in determining whether or not a purported agreement is a bona fide managerial contract as distinguished from a lease will depend upon who has ultimate overall control and direction of the licensed premises under the terms of the agreement." In reflecting on the requirements contained in the Rule and comparing it to the facts shown in this case, it is clear that the Respondent has failed to comply with Rule 7A-3.17, F.A.C.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco suspend license number 23-2702, for a period of 20 days, but that such suspension be withheld for 15 days from the date of the recommended order to: (1) allow Bill McKinney to try to transfer the license number 23-2702 into his name and control; or allow the Respondent to make him an officer, stockholder, or employee entitled to operate the licensed premises; or allow the Respondent to remove him as the manager and operator of the licensed premises; allow application for change of name from Zig Zag Pub to "Bill's Place" or remove a sign indicating that the licensed premises is called "Bill's Place" and to allow the Zig Zag Bar, Inc., to file a certified copy of the corporate minutes of the stockholders' meeting which changed its corporate officers to the present named corporate officers. After the 15 days if the items (1) through (3) haven't been complied with the suspension shall take effect. This recommendation does not consider the acceptability of Bill McKinney as a transferee of the license held with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco or the propriety of the name change; nor does it address the question of possible future violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Denise LaRosa, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Richard M. Knowles Secretary- Treasurer Zig Zag Pub 800 Alibaba Avenue Opa-Locka, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a Citgo Food Mart in Naples at which it sells gasoline and diesel fuel at retail, provides limited motor vehicle service, and sells food and beverage items. Petitioner issued Respondent retail dealer's fuel license #21- 000828, which authorizes Respondent to sell motor fuel at retail and requires Respondent to collect and remit to Petitioner motor fuel taxes. The principal of Respondent is Jack Stellman. He caused Respondent to purchase the business in April 1993 from the fuel wholesaler, which had purchased it from the previous retailer. The previous retailer had suffered business and personal setbacks that necessitated the sale. Mr. Stellman and his wife, Phyllis, who claims not to be an officer or employee of Respondent despite her considerable involvement, have contributed much personal capital and labor to the new business. Immediately after taking over the business, Mr. and Mrs. Stellman discarded outdated inventory, fired a number of dishonest employees, eliminated prostitution that had been taking place on the premises, added new equipment such as a pressure fryer and hood system, and started advertising. Cash flow was a problem for Respondent from the start. The major improvements were completed by the fall of 1994. By early 1994, however, Mr. Stellman had quit taking a salary from Respondent. Over the 19-month period from August 1993 through March 1995, Mr. and Mrs. Stellman borrowed $140,000 from a variety of sources, including from their retirement plan, from relatives, and on property that they own individually. Despite these infusions of cash, Respondent was unable to stay current with certain important creditors, such as their fuel supplier, the Internal Revenue Service, and Petitioner. In August 1993, the fuel wholesaler began to demand payment on delivery, instead of in 30 days, as it had done previously. The wholesaler shortened the credit terms on fuel after Respondent fell behind in payments shortly after beginning operations. In any event, the change in credit terms involved monthly volumes of typically 40,000-50,000 gallons. The loss of use of money corresponding to the wholesale purchase of this amount of fuel does not begin to explain the tax deficiencies that Respondent ran up. Respondent's deficiencies on its motor fuel tax also began in August 1993. Returns are filed the month following the month for which the motor fuel tax is due. For August 1993, Respondent filed a return in which it underremitted the motor fuel tax by $62.15. The next month, Respondent filed a return in which it remitted $2000 and left an unremitted balance of $2867.49. The next month, Respondent filed a return, but remitted none of the $6077.28 of motor fuel tax due. For November 1993, the next month, Respondent filed a return and remitted $2000, leaving an unremitted balance of $3278.78. For December 1993 through July 1994, Respondent filed returns but remitted no tax. The total tax deficiency for this eight-month period was $58,300.87, or an average of $7287.61. In the 12-month period ending with the July 1994 return, Respondent had failed to remit a total of $70,586.57. For the August, September, and October 1994 returns, Respondent made partial remittances. For August and September, Respondent left unremitted balances of only $15.34 and $84.30, respectively, remitting a total of $11,315.49. For October, Respondent remitted $4827.90, leaving an unremitted balance of $2623.98. For November 1994, Respondent filed a return, but failed to remit any of the $5983.74 due. In the summer of 1994, the Stellmans finally sold their house in New York, but realized less cash than they had expected. In October 1994, the Stellmans applied for a loan on their Florida residence. During the same month, they began negotiations with Texaco to convert their Citgo convenience store into a Texaco outlet. The Stellmans believed that they would receive $225,000 from Texaco, which would be sufficient to pay their fuel wholesaler and Petitioner, convert their service operation into more store space, and acquire additional inventory and working capital. The record does not permit a finding whether $225,000 would cover all of these items. In any event, the Texaco negotiations did not proceed quickly. The fuel wholesaler threatened litigation over the prospective cancellation of its contract to supply Respondent with fuel and oil. And Petitioner's representatives were increasingly unsatisfied with Respondent's lack of progress in paying back taxes. Repeatedly, the Stellmans promised payments that did not materialize. At the same time, Respondent was not remitting motor fuel taxes currently. For December 1994 through March 1995, Respondent did not even file returns. During this four-month period, motor fuel taxes due and unremitted totalled $32,106.59. The total of unremitted motor fuel taxes for August 1993 through March 1995 was now $111,400.52, exclusive of penalties and interest. Penalties for the underremittances for the period August 1993 through March 1995 totalled $60,284.67. Interest for the same period totalled $14,042.88. The total of tax, penalties, and interest was thus $185,728.07. Respondent later reduced this deficiency by paying a total of $323.48 of penalties and $4154.52 of interest, so the current totals are tax of $111,400.52, penalties of $59,961.19, and interest of $9888.36, for a total of $181,250.07. The interest is current through August 1, 1995, and the daily interest thereafter is calculated by multiplying the tax deficiency by 0.000328767. Mr. and Mrs. Stellman claim that the $185,728.07 deficiency arose due to business setbacks, but the business setbacks that they have shown do not account adequately for the deficiency. The Stellmans clearly began the business badly undercapitalized. Mr. and Mrs. Stellman attribute part of the financial problems to bad debts suffered by Respondent. From August 1993 through the end of 1993, the Stellmans pursued seasonal business by offering liberal credit terms, which eventually resulted in worthless accounts receivable. However, the total bad debt was only $15,000. Although hardly meriting mention, except perhaps to reveal their lack of insight, the Stellmans also complain that they lost cash flow due to ill- advised advertising deals into which they entered where they traded fuel for advertising. Even ignoring the benefits derived from such agreements, Respondent traded only about $4000 worth of fuel under these arrangements. Together, these claimed business setbacks of no more than $20,000 constitute less than 18 percent of the taxes, penalties, and interest owed Petitioner. The amount of motor fuel tax that Respondent would have collected on $20,000 worth of fuel would be around $1500. With more zeal than business acumen, the Stellmans attacked the challenge of a new business. Their lack of business sophistication, not fraud, led the Stellmans to convert the motor fuel taxes from current payables to long- term debt, to underreport the amount of fuel pumped on 12 of 19 returns filed with Petitioner during the period in question, and repeatedly to file returns late, so as to lose the collection allowance normally given retail dealers. The unwillingness of Petitioner to become a long term creditor was manifested dramatically when, on May 4, 1995, Petitioner issued an emergency order suspending Respondent's retail dealer's fuel license. The emergency suspension took place after a meeting of Petitioner's Emergency Response Group, which, after reviewing the facts, determined that this was the best course of action to prevent the loss of motor fuel tax. The Stellmans complain that Petitioner did not give them enough time to try to pay the tax deficiencies. However, the record does not justify the Stellmans' demand that Petitioner share their confidence in their ability to take care of this substantial debt. As late as mid-February 1995, the Stellmans were still making unfulfilled promises to pay, as when they assured a Naples employee of Petitioner that Respondent would pay $10,000 by mid-April. This sum was not paid, nor were the motor fuel taxes that Respondent collected at the time even paid currently. In other words, Respondent was still taking the motor fuel tax that it was collecting from customers and applying it to other debts. The Stellmans never told Petitioner what they expected to net from the Texaco agreement. They never explained why the negotiations took so long to conclude. In early 1995, Petitioner's representatives justifiably saw: 1) new financing never resulted in any reduction of the outstanding deficiencies and 2) the outstanding deficiencies continued to grow as Respondent continued to collect motor fuel tax and apply it to other purposes. The record is not entirely clear as to the status of Respondent with respect to unremitted or unpaid taxes in April 1995 and following. Respondent owed $34,861.20 in unremitted sales tax, as of May 1, 1995. However, it appears more likely than not that, during at least part of the period subsequent to May 1, 1995, Respondent remitted and paid to Petitioner its currently accruing tax obligations. With the cessation of fueling operations, these obligations arose from sales of convenience store items, as these sales were unaffected by Petitioner's action against Respondent's retail dealer's fuel license. Since the suspension of the license, the Stellmans have supplied Petitioner with accurate, current information concerning Respondent's tax liabilities, at least to the extent that they possess such information. Respondent's financial condition is precarious, at best. Even assuming that the Stellmans were willing to continue to contribute more money to Respondent, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they have the financial resources to contribute substantial sums beyond a large fraction of the total currently due Petitioner in this case. Such a payment would probably come from a combination of the Stellmans' assets and the assets of friends and family. Their obvious failure to prepare and follow a feasible business plan does not bode well for Respondent's future ability to operate and, at the same time, retire what has become a substantial financial liability owed to Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order: 1) suspending Respondent's retail dealer's fuel license for the lesser of six months from the date of the final order or until Respondent pays the sums described in paragraphs 38 and 39 and executes a promissory note with the conditions set forth in paragraphs 38 and 39 and 2) revoking Respondent's retail dealer's fuel license at the expiration of six months from the date of the final order unless Respondent has paid the above-described sums and entered into the above-described promissory note. ENTERED on October 27, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 27, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5-7: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9-10: rejected as subordinate. 11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12-18: rejected as subordinate. 19-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-23: rejected as subordinate. 24-26: adopted or adopted in substance except the taxpayer is Respondent, not Mr. Stellman individually. 27: rejected as subordinate. 28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29-35: rejected as subordinate. 36-37: adopted or adopted in substance. 38: rejected as subordinate. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: rejected as recitation of evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance, although the "great expense" in paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 8-10: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The financial problems were minor. 11: adopted or adopted in substance to the extent relevant. 12-13: rejected as subordinate. 14: rejected as speculative. 15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: rejected as irrelevant. 17: adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as subordinate. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence except that the filings is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Francisco Negron, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Christian B. Felden Felden and Felden 2590 Golden Gate Parkway Suite 101 Naples, FL 33942
