The Issue The issue in this case is whether Callagy Tires, Inc. (Petitioner), collected and remitted the correct amount of sales and use tax on its operations for the audit period.
Findings Of Fact DOR is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the tax laws of the state of Florida. In conjunction with that duty, DOR performs audits of business entities conducting sales and use transactions. At all times material to the issues of this case, Petitioner conducted business in Palm Bay, Florida, and was obligated to collect and remit sales and use tax in connection with the activities of its business enterprise. Petitioner’s Federal Identification Number is 59-2221722. Petitioner sells tires (wholesale and retail), provides tire services such as installation, and performs other repair and towing services subject to sales or use taxes. In order to properly perform its audit responsibilities, DOR requires that businesses maintain and present business records to support the collection of sales and use taxes. In this case, DOR notified Petitioner that it intended to audit the business operations for the audit period, June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2007. After the appropriate notice to Petitioner, the audit was initiated on or about July 18, 2007. Employees of DOR went to Petitioner’s place of business, requested business records, and attempted to audit and reconcile Petitioner’s reported tax payments with the amounts and types of taxes that should have been remitted, based upon the records kept by Petitioner. Theoretically, the sums remitted to the Department should match the records of the business entity. In this case, the amount remitted by Petitioner could not be reconciled with the business records maintained by the business entity. As a result of the audit, DOR sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes that claimed Callagy Tires, Inc., owed sales and use tax in the amount of $121,707.41. By letter dated August 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a protest of the audit findings. Thereafter, the parties exchanged information that Petitioner claimed should require reconsideration of the audit results. Nevertheless, the Department could not reconcile the bank and audit information based upon the documentation submitted by Petitioner. The amounts of the Notice of Reconsideration remain at issue. As of the time of the hearing in this cause, Petitioner had not provided documentation to refute the findings of the Department’s audit. At hearing, DOR maintained that Petitioner owes $173,718.66, together with accruing interest. Specifically, the audit found that there was a difference between the gross sales reported by Petitioner on its federal return and the amounts reported on its state forms. The difference between the two returns constituted unreported sales for state tax purposes. Secondly, the Department determined that certain sales were not “exempt” as maintained by Petitioner. Based upon a sample of invoices provided by Petitioner, DOR found that Petitioner did not remit the full sales tax due on certain types of services. For example, the correct sales tax was not remitted on machining brake rotors, truing brake rotors, or making repairs that included the use of tangible personal property. The taxable event required a calculation of sales tax on the entire amount, not a percentage of the cost. The third area of discrepancy identified by the audit, related to unpaid sales tax on machinery, equipment, supplies, and services purchased by Petitioner for use in the operation of its business. Throughout the audit process, and, subsequently, Petitioner never presented documentation to dispute the Department’s audit findings. DOR gave Petitioner every opportunity to present records that would establish that the correct amounts of sale and use taxes were collected and remitted. Petitioner timely challenged the audit findings, but, has not, through its principal owner or its agents, provided documentation that show the taxes were appropriately calculated and paid. Petitioner maintains that an amended federal tax return verifies the state return previously filed is accurate. Notwithstanding that assertion, Petitioner has not presented the underlying documentation to support the state or federal return. Further, Petitioner refused to allow DOR to review all of its electronically stored records, and did not make the records available to DOR.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the audit findings, and require the Petitioner to remit the unpaid sales and use taxes in the amount of $173,718.66, together with accrued interest, as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Eugene M. Callagy, Jr. Callagy Tires, Inc. 6625 Babcock Street, Southeast Malabar, Florida 32950 Patrick Hanley, Esquire 185 Forest Road Troy, Montana 59935-9572 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39-8011930243-9 should be revoked for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Administrative Complaint) issued by the Department of Revenue (Department) on June 5, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the state revenue laws, including the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation doing business as The Hyde Park Cafe at 1806 West Platt Street, Tampa, Florida. For purposes of collecting and remitting sales and use taxes, it is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2) and is required to comply with chapter 212. Respondent holds Certificate of Registration number 39- 8011930243-9, which became effective on July 27, 2000. A certificate of registration is required in order to do business in the state and requires its holder to collect and remit sales tax pursuant to chapter 212. See § 212.05(1), Fla. Stat. Respondent is also an employing unit as defined in section 443.036(20) and is subject to the unemployment compensation tax (UCT) provisions of chapter 443, as provided in section 443.1215. Through an interagency agreement with the Department of Economic Opportunity, the Department provides collection services for UCTs. See § 443.1316(1), Fla. Stat. In doing so, the Department is considered to be administering a revenue law of the state. See § 443.1316(2), Fla. Stat. A dealer must file with the Department sales tax returns and remit the tax collected on a monthly basis. See § 212.15(1), Fla. Stat. Also, an employment unit must remit payment to the Department for UCTs due and owing on a quarterly basis. The Department is authorized to revoke a dealer's certificate of registration for failure to comply with state tax laws. See § 212.18(3)(e), Fla. Stat. If the Department files a warrant, notice of lien, or judgment lien certificate against the property of a dealer, it may also revoke a certificate of registration. See § 213.692(1), Fla. Stat. Before revoking a certificate of registration, the Department must convene an informal conference that the dealer is required to attend. See § 213.692(1)(a), Fla. Stat. At the conference, the dealer may either present evidence to refute the Department's allegations of noncompliance or enter into a compliance agreement with the Department to resolve the dealer's failure to comply with chapter 212. Id. After a compliance agreement is executed by the dealer, the Department may revoke the certificate of registration if the dealer fails to comply with its terms and conditions. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ E. If a breach occurs, the entire amount is due and payable immediately. Id. at ¶ G. An informal conference can be characterized as the Department's last administrative remedy to collect delinquent taxes before beginning revocation proceedings. A dealer can also enter into a diversion program with the State Attorney's Office to resolve liabilities, but the record shows that Respondent defaulted on that arrangement. According to the Department, collection problems with this dealer first began in 2003. Department records show that Respondent failed to remit required sales taxes for the months of January 2012, August through December 2012, January through December 2013, and January and February 2014. In addition, Respondent failed to remit UCTs for the calendar quarters ending September 2010, December 2010, March 2011, June 2011, September 2011, December 2011, March 2012, June 2012, September 2012, December 2012, and March 2013. Respondent does not dispute that it failed to timely remit and pay the foregoing taxes for the time periods listed above. For the purpose of collecting the delinquent taxes, the Department issued and filed against Respondent delinquent tax warrants, notices of lien, or judgment lien certificates in the Hillsborough County public records. See Pet'r Ex. 3. Before seeking revocation of Respondent's certificate of registration, on February 5, 2014, the Department's Tampa Service Center served on Respondent a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Notice). See Pet'r Ex. 4. The Notice scheduled an informal conference on March 21, 2014. It listed 16 periods of sales and use tax noncompliance and 11 periods of re-employment tax noncompliance and provided the total tax liability as of that date. This number was necessarily fluid, as the taxes owed were accruing interest, penalties, and/or fees on a daily basis. The purpose of the informal conference was to give Respondent a final opportunity to make full payment of all delinquent taxes, or to demonstrate why the Department should not revoke its Certificate of Registration. As pointed out by the Department, an informal conference allows a dealer to bring up "any concerns" that it has regarding its obligations. Respondent's manager and registered agent, Christopher Scott, appeared at the conference on behalf of Respondent.1/ At the meeting, he acknowledged that the dealer had not timely paid the taxes listed in the Notice and that the money was used instead to keep the business afloat. However, Mr. Scott presented paperwork representing that sales and use tax returns and payments for the months of November 2013 through February 2014 had just been filed online, and checks in the amount of $8,101.41 and $9,493.99 were recently sent to Tallahassee. It takes 24 hours for online payments to show up in the system, and even more time for checks to be processed in Tallahassee. Accordingly, the Department agreed that Mr. Scott could have a few more days before signing a compliance agreement. This would allow the Department to verify that the payments were posted and recalculate the amount of taxes still owed. Also, before entering a compliance agreement, Respondent was required to make a down payment of around $20,000.00. Mr. Scott had insufficient cash, and a delay of a few days would hopefully allow him to secure the necessary money for a down payment. When none of the payments had posted by March 25, 2014, the Department calculated a total liability of $113,448.13, consisting of sales and use taxes and UCTs, penalties, interest, and fees. As of that date, none of the taxes listed in Finding of Fact 9 had been paid. On March 25, 2014, Respondent's controller, who did not attend the informal conference, sent an email to the Department requesting a breakdown on the new tax liability. In response to her request, the Department faxed a copy of the requested information. See Resp. Ex. 4. After getting this information, the controller continued to take the position that the Department's calculations overstate Respondent's tax liability. On March 31, 2014, Mr. Scott signed the compliance agreement. See Pet'r Ex. 6. Despite the controller testifying that she did not agree with the numbers, no question was raised by Mr. Scott when he signed the agreement. By then, the check in the amount of $8,101.41 had cleared and been credited to Respondent's account. Along with other funds, it was used towards the down payment of $20,000.00. The record does not show the status of the other payments that Mr. Scott claimed were mailed or filed online prior to the informal conference; however, on March 31, 2014, except for the one check, none had yet posted. The compliance agreement required scheduled payments for 12 months, with the final payment, a balloon payment in an undisclosed amount, being subject to renegotiation in the last month. Payments one and two were $1,500.00, while payments three through 11 were $2,900.00. The compliance agreement reflected a balance owed of $95,887.36, consisting of $60,504.34 in sales taxes and $35,347.02 in UCTs.2/ In return for the Department refraining from pursuing revocation proceedings, the compliance agreement required Respondent to "remit all past due amounts to the Department as stated in the attached payment agreement," "accurately complete and timely file all required tax returns and reports for the next 12 months," and "timely remit all taxes due for the next 12 months." Pet'r Ex. 1, p. 1. In other words, the compliance agreement addressed both delinquent taxes and current taxes that would be due during the following 12-month period, and it required that both categories of taxes be timely paid in the manner prescribed by the agreement. To summarize the salient points of the agreement, all taxes were to be timely paid; delinquent taxes were to be paid by certified check, money order, or cash and were to be mailed or hand delivered to the Tampa Service Center and not Tallahassee; and while not specifically addressed in the agreement, the dealer was instructed to pay all current obligations electronically, as required by law. Otherwise, Respondent was in violation of the compliance agreement. A Payment Agreement Schedule for past due taxes was incorporated into the compliance agreement and provided that the first payment was due April 30, 2014, payable to: Florida Department of Revenue, Tampa Service Center, 6302 East Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33619. Payments 2 through 12 were to be mailed or hand delivered to the same address. This meant, with no ambiguity, that money should not be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that these instructions were misunderstood. Unless a waiver is granted, Respondent is required by statute and rule to electronically file sales and use tax returns and UCT reports. See § 213.755, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 12-24.009 (where a taxpayer has paid its taxes in the prior state fiscal year in an amount of $20,000.00 or more, subsequent payments shall be made electronically). No waivers have been approved. In 2003, the Department notified Respondent of these requirements and Respondent complied with this directive until 2009. For reasons not disclosed, in 2009 Respondent voluntarily quit filing electronically. The record is silent on why this was allowed.3/ In any event, at the informal conference, Mr. Scott was specifically told that all current returns, reports, and taxes must be filed electronically, and not by mail, and that no money should be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that he misunderstood these instructions. In its PRO, Respondent correctly points out that the requirement to file current returns electronically was not specifically addressed in the compliance agreement. This is because the compliance agreement does not set forth every statutory and rule requirement that applies to a dealer. If this amount of detail were required, a dealer could ignore any otherwise applicable rule or statute not found in the compliance agreement. This contention has no merit. Respondent failed to electronically file the current sales and use tax return and payment for the month of March 2014, due no later than April 21, 2014. Instead, it sent a paper check, which was returned by the bank for insufficient funds. This constituted a breach of the compliance agreement. Despite repeated instructions on how and where to pay the delinquent taxes, payment 1, due on April 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent to Tallahassee, rather than the Tampa office. This contravened the compliance agreement. When payment was not timely received by the Tampa Service Center, Respondent was told that a check must be delivered to the Tampa office by May 9. Respondent hand delivered a second check, this one certified, to the Tampa Service Center on May 9, 2014, or after the April 30 due date. The second check was treated as payment 1. Respondent points out that on May 7 the Tampa Service Center granted its request for an extension of time until May 9 in which to deliver the certified check. While this is true, the extension was allowed in an effort to "work with" the Respondent on the condition that the account would be brought current by that date; otherwise, revocation proceedings would begin. Even if the extra ten days is construed as a grace period for payment 1, there were other violations of the compliance agreement set forth below. Payment 2 for delinquent taxes, due on May 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent by mail to Tallahassee rather than the Tampa Service Center.4/ This contravened the compliance agreement. After the May 30, 2014 payment, Respondent made no further payments pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule. This constituted a violation of the compliance agreement. Respondent did not remit payment with its current sales and use return for the month of August 2014. This contravened the compliance agreement. Respondent did not file any current sales and use tax returns or remit payment for the months of July 2014 or September through January 2015. This contravened the compliance agreement. Beginning in March 2014, Respondent filed current reemployment tax returns and payments using the incorrect tax rate on every return. This delayed their processing and resulted in penalties being imposed. In addition, even though Respondent was repeatedly told that such returns must be filed electronically, none were filed in that manner, as required by statute and rule. This contravened the compliance agreement. In its PRO, Respondent contends the compliance agreement cannot be enforced because there was no "meeting of the minds" by the parties on all essential terms of the agreement. Specifically, it argues that the total amount of taxes owed was still in dispute -- the dealer contended that it owed $23,000.00 less than was shown in the agreement; the Payment Schedule Agreement did not specify the amount of the final balloon payment; the compliance agreement failed to state when payments are due if the due date falls on a weekend or holiday; the compliance agreement did not specify how the dealer's payments would be allocated between UCTs and sales and use taxes; and the compliance agreement failed to address the issue of filing electronically. Although some of these issues were not raised in the parties' Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, or even addressed by testimony at hearing, they are all found to be without merit for the reasons expressed below. First, Mr. Scott did not dispute the amount of taxes owed when he signed the agreement, and he brought no evidence to the conference to support a different amount. Second, as explained to Mr. Scott at the informal conference, the precise amount of the balloon payment can only be established in the 12th month. This is because the exact amount depends on the dealer's compliance with the agreement over the preceding 11 months, and the amount of interest, penalties, and/or other fees that may have accrued during the preceding year. Third, there is no evidence that the dealer was confused when a due date for a payment fell on a weekend or holiday. Even if it was confused, reference to section 212.11(1)(e) and (f) would answer this question. Fourth, there is no statute or rule that requires the Department to specify how the delinquent payments are allocated. Moreover, neither Mr. Scott nor the controller requested that such an allocation be incorporated into the agreement before it was signed. Finally, the issue of filing electronically already has been addressed in Finding of Fact 22 and Endnote 3. At hearing, Respondent's controller testified that she was out of town when the conference was held, suggesting that Mr. Scott, who is not an accountant, was at a disadvantage when he attended the informal conference. However, Respondent had six weeks' notice before the conference, and there is no evidence that Respondent requested that the meeting be rescheduled to a more convenient day. Also, Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Scott was authorized to represent its interests at the conference, or that he could have been briefed by the controller before attending the informal conference or signing the compliance agreement. See also Endnote 1. Notably, at hearing, the controller testified that she "was involved in actually negotiating the agreement both before and after it was actually signed" even though she did not attend the conference. Tr. at 89. Respondent also contends that after the Department considered the compliance agreement to be breached, the dealer had no further obligation to make payments pursuant to the agreement or state law until the parties negotiated a new agreement. Aside from Respondent's failure to cite any authority to support this proposition, nothing in the compliance agreement comports with this assertion. To the contrary, the compliance agreement specifically provides that if a breach occurs, the entire tax liability becomes due immediately. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ G. Thus, Respondent is obligated to pay the entire tax liability, which now exceeds $200,000.00. All other arguments raised by Respondent have been carefully considered and are rejected as being without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39- 8011930243-9. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2015.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this cause, Robert W. Pope has been the holder of license no. 62-600, series 4-COP, SRX, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage to trade as The Wedgewood Inn, located at 1701, 4th Street, South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. When the Respondent, Pope, began to operate the licensed premises he was given a registration sales tax number by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This number was provided in accordance with 212, F.S. That law required the remittance of the collected sales tax on a month to month basis, the period beginning with the first day of the month and ending with the last day of the month. The remittance was due on the first day of the following month and payable by the 20th day of the following month. Failure to pay by the 20th would result in a 5 percent penalty and 1 percent interest per month. The sales tax remittance due from the licensed premises for December, 1975 through August, 1976 was not made, and a lien was filed to aid collection of the tax. In mid 1976, the Respondent, contacted the State of Florida, Department of Revenue to discuss term payments of the sales tax remittance. The Respondent in October, 1976 tried to effect a partial release of the tax claim by paying $2,900. In keeping with their policy the Department of Revenue rejected these efforts. Subsequently, in February, 1977, the Respondent made a $10,000 initial payment and three monthly installments to satisfy the lien on this licensed premises and another licensed premises which the Respondent owned. At present all taxes due and owing under 212, F.S. are current. The above facts establish that the Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of 212, F.S. pertaining to the remittance of sales tax from the Respondent to the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This violation, thereby subjects the Respondent to the possible penalties of 561.29, F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Robert W. Pope, be required to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 or have the license no. 62-600, series 4- COP, SRX, suspended for a period of 10 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 611 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner owes unpaid sales and use tax, interest, and penalties for the period of February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings are made. Petitioner, Macfarlane, Ferguson, & McMullen, P.A., ("Macfarlane"), is a law firm located in Tampa, Florida. In May 1993, Macfarlane entered into a Copy Control Services Agreement ("1993 Contract") with Copy Control Center ("CCC"). The 1993 Contract, which was effective for three years, called for CCC to provide copying services within the physical confines of the MacFarlane law firm. CCC provided the personnel and MacFarlane provided the equipment and space for copying. The 1993 Contract called for a flat rate charge to Macfarlane. This stated flat rate charge covered a maximum number of copies each month. Pursuant to the terms of the 1993 Contract, so long as MacFarlane did not make more than 160,000 copies per month, it was charged a flat rate of $10,000 per month. Additional copy-related work over the flat rate charge for the maximum of 160,000 copies was at additional cost. An appendix to the 1993 Contract set forth the additional costs not covered by the flat monthly fee. If no copies were made under the contract, the base fee of the $10,000 would still have to be paid by Macfarlane. Paragraph 4 of the 1993 Contract required CCC to bill Macfarlane "monthly for the preceding month's copies." That paragraph of the 1993 Contract also provides that, "[i]ncluded with the invoice will be a detailed monthly usage report." The invoices issued under the 1993 Contract listed all costs for the month or preceding month. At the bottom of each invoice, CCC listed a total "sale amount" which consisted of the total of the copying facilities management charge and the additional charges. Between May 1993 and January 1994, Macfarlane paid sales tax on the total amount invoiced under the 1993 Contract (i.e. for all goods (copies) and services). In 1993 and 1994, the Department audited CCC. The audit was conducted by Elizabeth Sanchez, an auditor employed by the Department. Based on the 1993 and 1994 audit of CCC, the Department, through its auditor, Ms. Sanchez, alleged that CCC was not properly collecting sales tax from its clients, such as Macfarlane. Specifically, Ms. Sanchez determined that CCC should not have been taxing the entire cost of the 1993 Contract since a portion of the contract was related to services. Instead, the auditor represented that CCC should only tax the direct materials for the photocopy process (paper, toner, developer, and other supplies). Ultimately, CCC was assessed $16,000 in back taxes because it failed to pay sales tax on direct materials. During the aforementioned audit of CCC, Ms. Sanchez developed a formula which CCC could use in charging sales and use taxes to its clients. The formula was discussed with CCC personnel. CCC believed that the formula devised by Ms. Sanchez required or allowed the allocation of tax between nontaxable services and taxable photocopy consumables. Based on its understanding of the formula, CCC quit taxing Macfarlane for the entire amount of the monthly invoices issued under the 1993 Contract. Rather, consistent with its understanding of what was allowed under Ms. Sanchez's formula, CCC modified its billing to allocate tax between what CCC considered to be the facilities management services rendered under the 1993 Contract and the photocopy consumables used under that contract. The Department does not dispute that Ms. Sanchez developed a formula during the 1993 and 1994 audit of CCC. In fact, in the Department's Response to Petitioner's Request for Admissions, the Department admits that "Ms. Sanchez did audit Copy Control Center . . . and did develop a formula during that audit." However, the Department contends that the formula developed by Ms. Sanchez has no basis in law and fact and her actions are contrary to Rule 12A-1.0161(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code. According to the Department, that Rule requires both a statement of the actual cost of the taxable sales and the nontaxable services and the separation of taxable sales from non-taxable services in a contract or invoice for the service to be untaxed. In 1996, Macfarlane executed a new Copy Control Services Agreement with CCC (the "1996 Contract"). The 1996 Contract, dated May 22, 1996, was in effect from May 1996 through April 30, 2000. The 1996 Contract contained similar terms and conditions as the 1993 Contract, including a flat-rate charge and a maximum number of copies before additional charges were imposed. The flat-rate charge in the 1996 contract was $10,200 and the maximum number of copies before additional charges were imposed increased to 170,000. Additional copy- related work over the flat rate charge was at additional cost. The additional costs not covered by the flat monthly fee were set forth in an appendix to the 1996 Contract. Paragraph 6 of the 1996 Contract was entitled "Invoices." That section provides in pertinent part the following: A summary invoice for all Customer Locations shall be sent by Copy Control to the bill-to address and contact person of the Customer set forth hereinbelow, on a monthly basis. The monthly minimum base charge will be invoiced on the first day of each month. Additional charges for copies in excess of target volume or additional services from the previous month will be included with this invoice. In addition, Copy Control specifically agrees to provide to such Customer contact person, on a monthly in arrears basis, a summary report of the C.C.M. [Copy Control Management] Services transaction activity at, (A) all Customer Locations; and, (B) the Copy Control back-up facility, if any ("Summary Report"). Each Summary Report will contain, at a minimum, the following information: The total volume of Copies rendered; The number of Copies rendered per Customer location; The number of Copies above the Targeted Copy Volume, if any, and total Excess Copy Charge therefor by Customer Location and Copy Control back-up facility; The volume of Copies and associated dollar amount rendered at Copy Control's back-up facility, if any; The number of Copies "short" of Targeted Copy Volume; Additional Supplies procured, if any; Amount of overtime paid, if any, for Copy Control Personnel and dates therefor; A description of the Related Services, if any provided by Copy Control and the charge(s) therefore, if any; (emphasis supplied) Consistent with the terms of the 1996 Contract, CCC rendered an invoice to Macfarlane each month during the term of the contract and during the remainder of the audit period covered by that contract. Each invoice listed charges for making copies and off-site copies and other copy-related work and/or materials and products. Under the line for "Copying Facilities Mgt. Billing" were the additional charges made according to the appendix to the contract. The following invoice, dated June 30, 1995, is representative of the monthly invoices issued by CCC to Macfarlane during the period covered by the Department's audit of Macfarlane. That invoice provides in material part the following: COPY CONTROL CENTER INVOICE NO. 131611 3907 W. Osborne Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 SOLD TO: MacFarlane Ausley & et al 23rd Floor LeeAnn Conley 111 E. Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 INVOICE DATE 6/30/95 QYT. ORDERED 1 QTY. SHIPPED 1 ITEM NO. COPIES DESCRIPTION COPIES UNIT PRICE 10000.00 Copying Facilities Mgt.Billing for June 23913 23913 Copies Copies Overage 0.04 1 1 TAX Tax on CCM Material 106.39 1 1 Copies Off Site Services 349.36 1 1 TONER 90 TONER 174.25 9 9 STOCK 8 1/2 x 11 White Paper 2.85 SALE AMOUNT 11612.17 MISC. CHARGES 6.500% SALES TAX 35.70 FREIGHT TOTAL 11647.87 For all the invoices generated under the 1996 Contract, CCC taxed Macfarlane in accordance with its understanding of the formula devised and recommended by Ms. Sanchez. Based on application of this formula, Macfarlane was charged and remitted only sales tax for the consumable goods portion of the contract. During the audit period which is the subject of this proceeding, February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998, the sales tax was either 6.5 percent or 7 percent, whichever was in effect at the time of the invoice. The sales tax listed on the invoices do not reflect tax on the total amount of the invoice. A multiplication of the total amount by either 6.5 or 7 percent reveals that the amount of sales taxes paid by Macfarlane for the audit period in question, February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998, was only on a small portion of the total invoice billing. The 1993 Contract and the 1996 Contract between Macfarlane and CCC do not address, contain language, or speak directly to any "facilities management services." Neither do the contracts define the terms "service," "related services," or "other related services." Although the terms listed in paragraph 22 above are not defined in the 1993 Contract and the 1996 Contract, Mr. Cayo, the regional operations manager of Lanier Professional Services (LPS), formerly CCC, testified that other services included facilities management services. According to Mr. Cayo, "facilities management" at Macfarlane included making deliveries and rounds, key-oping equipment, filing, supporting, and cleaning and setting up conference rooms. Diane Garner, an employee of CCC, was assigned to work at Macfarlane during the time of the audit period which is the subject of this proceeding. Ms. Garner testified that facilities management services or other services provided by CCC included providing coffee service, sorting mail, sending and delivering faxes, sending and delivering Federal Express packages, moving boxes, ordering and delivering office supplies, and making interoffice mail runs. If the above-described facilities management services were provided, none of the invoices sent by CCC to Macfarlane separately listed any charges to Macfarlane for those services. Moreover, CCC did not separately list on its invoices to Macfarlane a charge for "mail delivery," "filing," "charge-back accounting," or "clerical services," or any other such services. If these services were deemed "related services," the provisions of the 1996 Contract quoted in paragraph 16 required that a description of such services be provided on the invoice or summary report. No description of the foregoing services appears on any of the invoices prepared by CCC and issued to Macfarlane. No other contracts existed between CCC and Macfarlane during the audit periods which reflect that the services described in paragraphs 23 and 24 above would be offered or provided by CCC to Macfarlane. The Department audited Macfarlane in 1999. The audit was conducted by Darlene Bebbington, an auditor with the Department. During this audit, contrary to the position of Ms. Sanchez during the aforementioned audit of CCC, the Department stated that Macfarlane was required to pay tax on the full amount of the invoices. This conclusion was reached by Ms. Bebbington based on the information contained on each invoice. The invoices did not itemize or otherwise separately list or detail products, materials, and/or services that were exempt from tax. To address issues raised by Ms. Bebbington during the audit, Macfarlane sought information from CCC regarding the sales tax amounts that were listed on the invoices. In response, CCC provided two letters to Macfarlane, one dated April 29, 1999, and the second one dated September 22, 1999. In the April 29, 1999, letter to Macfarlane, Mr. Cayo explained how the company handled the sales tax issue for Facilities Management customers and the rationale for doing so. Mr. Cayo stated that during the Department's audit of CCC, Ms. Sanchez indicated that "Facilities Management" was a service and it "was not subject to be taxed." In the letter, Mr. Cayo also stated that all equipment and material used in the performance of these services needed to be taxed, but not the total "Facilities Management" charge. The September 22, 1999, letter was from Andrew Schutte, Finance Manager of LPS, formerly CCC, to Macfarlane and was in response to a specific inquiry from Macfarlane. In that letter, Mr. Schutte stated that the two full-time CCC employees working at the Macfarlane office assigned 87 percent of their collective time performing various facilities management services and spent approximately 13 percent of their collective time making photocopies. However, the letter did not indicate how Mr. Schutte arrived at the quoted percentages or the time period for which those percentages applied. Based on CCC's claim that the formula devised by Ms. Sanchez was used to calculate the amount of sales tax it should charge Macfarlane, Ms. Bebbington pulled CCC's audit file from the Department's records. The Department contends that any agreement to use a formula such as the one described in paragraph 10, should have, by Department policy, been in writing, signed by the auditor and the supervisors, and placed in the audit file. However, upon a review of the Department's records, no such written agreement or documentation was in the CCC audit file. In light of the Department's admission noted in paragraph 13 above, Ms. Sanchez devised a formula which was shared with CCC, but she apparently did not include this formula or her discussions with CCC in the audit file. After Ms. Bebbington completed the audit of Macfarlane and based on the results thereof, the Department notified Macfarlane that it intended to impose additional sales and use tax, interest, and penalties. After the audit report was issued Macfarlane objected to the findings and requested that the Department reconsider the assessment. On or about April 10, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration ("Notice") based on Macfarlane's protest of the Department's audit findings for the period of February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998. The Notice showed that Macfarlane owed additional sales and use tax of $35,958.27, a penalty of $17,979.37, and interest through April 6, 2000, of $16,701.32, and additional interest through April 12, 2000, of $3,606.12. The notice also indicated that interest would continue to accrue at $9.72 per day from April 12, 2001. According to the Notice, Macfarlane made a payment of $6,407.65 to the Department on April 6, 2000, leaving an unpaid balance of $67,837.43. Macfarlane asserts that it should not have to pay sales and use tax on the full amount of the invoice because a portion of that amount is for services that are exempt from sales and use tax. Contrary to this assertion, the auditor found that the invoices and other documentary evidence provided to the Department did not provide substantial competent evidence that any portion of the invoice amounts were attributable to products, materials, or services that were exempt from tax. Accordingly, based on the information provided by Macfarlane, the Department properly concluded that the total amount of each invoice was subject to sales and use tax. Because there is no substantial competent written documentation evidencing what tax exempt services were performed by CCC for Macfarlane and what specified portion of the monthly costs invoiced to Macfarlane were for those "claimed" tax exempt services, Macfarlane is liable for the entire amount on the invoices for the audit period. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Macfarlane did not timely pay the total amount of the invoices, including the amount attributable by CCC to sales and use tax. But for CCC's changing the manner in which it calculated the sales and use tax for its customers in early 1994, Macfarlane would have continued paying the tax on all goods and services as it did prior to January 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered sustaining the assessment for sales and use tax against Petitioner, but compromising the entire interest and penalty amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 6th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James W. Goodwin, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33602 Bruce Hoffman, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jarrell L. Murchison, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Eric J. Taylor, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David Adams, Esquire Charles Moore, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact High-Tech Yacht & Ship, Inc. (Petitioner) is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of retail sales of marine vessels. Also, Petitioner is a registered retail dealer in the State of Florida. The President of Petitioner is its only corporate officer. On or about September 2, 1993, Petitioner, in the capacity of a broker, sold a motor yacht at retail to Regency Group, Inc. (purchaser), through its representative, for $78,000. The motor yacht is described as a 1988, 41' Amerosport Chris Craft, hull Number CCHEU075E788, and called the "Motivator". At the closing of the sale, on or about September 2, 1993, the purchaser refused to pay the sales tax on the purchase, which was $4,680. However, the purchaser agreed to pay the sales tax after being informed by Petitioner that, without the payment of the sales tax, there could be no closing. The purchaser's representative submitted, at closing, a personal check in the amount of $4,680 for the sales tax. All of the necessary documents were completed for ownership and registration to be transferred to the purchaser. Subsequently, Petitioner received notice from its bank that the check for the sales tax had been dishonored by the purchaser's bank. The purchaser's representative had stopped payment on the check. In October 1993, Petitioner submitted its sales and use tax return for the month of September 1993 to Respondent in which the sale of the yacht was reported. Respondent automatically reviews sales and use tax returns. Respondent's review of Petitioner's return revealed a shortage of sales tax collected in the amount of $4,680.. In January 1994, Respondent issued a notice of tax action for assessment of additional tax in the amount of $4,710, plus interest and penalty, to Petitioner. The $4,710 included the loss of Petitioner's collection allowance of $30, which loss resulted from Petitioner's failure to timely remit all taxes due. Having received the notice of tax action, by letter dated January 20, 1994, Petitioner generally informed Respondent of the circumstances regarding the sales tax shortage, including the dishonored check. Petitioner pointed out, among other things, that Respondent had the authority and the means to collect the tax, while it (Petitioner) had limited means, and suggested, among other things, that Respondent cancel the purchaser's Florida registration of the yacht. On or about January 31, 1994, approximately three months after the check for sales tax was dishonored, Petitioner issued a notice of dishonored check to the purchaser, in which Petitioner requested payment of the sales tax. The notice provided, among other things, that Petitioner could seek criminal prosecution and civil action if the monies were not paid to Petitioner. Having not received the $4,680, Petitioner contacted the local law enforcement agency. After investigation, the law enforcement agency informed Petitioner that a civil action would have to be instituted because the purchaser, through its representative, had indicated that it was not satisfied with the yacht. Although Petitioner engaged the services of an attorney for civil action, no civil action was commenced. Additionally, Petitioner did not engage the services of a collection agency for assistance in collecting the sales tax. Subsequent to its notice of tax action, on or about March 12, 1994, Respondent issued a notice of assessment to Petitioner. The notice of assessment provided, among other things, that Petitioner was being assessed taxes in the amount of $4,710, plus penalty and interest in the amount of $2,342.61, totalling $7,052.61. Petitioner protested the assessment. On February 8, 1995, Respondent issued its notice of reconsideration in which Respondent determined, among other things, that the assessment was appropriate and affirmed the assessment of $7,052.61, plus interest and penalty. The interest accrues at the rate of $1.55 per day. Petitioner has not remitted any of the assessed tax, including interest and penalty, to Respondent. Petitioner has not identified on its federal tax return the noncollection of the sales tax from the purchaser as a bad debt. Sales tax is part of the total sale price for an item. Respondent considers the sales tax as collectable by a seller in the same manner as any other debt owed by a purchaser to a seller. A retail dealer, who is also a seller, is considered to be an agent for the State in the collection of sales tax. The burden of collecting the sales tax is placed upon the retail dealer by Respondent. Some of Respondent's employees have been sympathetic to Petitioner's tax assessment matter. However, none of the employees indicated to or advised Petitioner that Respondent was or is in error.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order affirming the assessment of sales tax against High-Tech Yacht & Ship, Inc. in the amount of $7,052.61, plus interest and penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 7th day of August 1996.
Findings Of Fact During the discovery phase of this proceeding, the Department ascertained from Echo Artz that $4,070 (the "Uncontested Amount") of the assessed tax was not contested. That is, Echo Artz agreed that it owed at least that amount of the total tax assessment of $67,757.46 set forth in the Notice. Of the total amount set forth in the Notice, $54,626.25 was the tax portion and the remainder was interest. No penalties were imposed as of the date of the Notice of Proposed Assessment. The Uncontested Amount was approximately 7.5 percent of the tax portion and approximately 5.9 percent of the total assessment. At the final hearing, during discussion of the Department's Motion to Dismiss, Echo Artz stated that the Uncontested Amount was erroneous. Instead, it stated that $23,135 of the total tax assessment was actually uncontested. The total tax portion of the assessment should be, according to Echo Artz, $57,730. The revised uncontested amount was approximately 40 percent of the total tax portion. Echo Artz did not pay any of the Uncontested Amount or any of the revised uncontested amount pursuant to its own calculations. The Department asserts that inasmuch as Echo Artz failed to pay the Uncontested Amount prior to filing its request for formal hearing, the case must be dismissed as required by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Revenue, enter a final order of dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration issued on November 16, 2009, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute that the Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating, controlling, and administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including the laws relating to the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use tax pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. There is no dispute that Abkey is a Florida corporation whose principal address is 7800 Southwest 104th Street, Miami, Florida 33156. Abkey is a restaurant. At the time of hearing, Abkey had 33 employees and was operating at a deficit. There is no dispute that, at all times material hereto, Abkey possessed Florida sales tax certificate of registration number 23-8012096448-9, issued by the Department on April 18, 1994. There is no dispute that Abkey is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2), Florida Statutes, and has been a dealer at all times material hereto. For the month of June 2009, Abkey failed to file a sales tax return. As a result of this failure, the Department assessed Abkey an estimated sales tax due in the amount of $9,500.00. For 2005, Abkey failed to remit its self-reported sales tax liability to the Department for the months of July, September, October, November, and December. Abkey self-reported its tax liability, by filing sales tax returns, for the said months. For 2006, Abkey failed to remit its self-reported sales tax liability to the Department for the months of January and May. Abkey self-reported its tax liability, by filing sales tax returns, for the said months. Also, for 2006, Abkey failed to timely remit its sales tax liability for the month of October for which the Department assessed a penalty and an administrative/collection/processing fee. For 2007, Abkey failed to remit its self-reported sales tax liability to the Department for the months of February and August. Abkey self-reported its tax liability, by filing sales tax returns, for the said months. Also, for 2007, Abkey failed to timely remit its sales tax liability for the month of October, for which the Department assessed a penalty and an administrative/collection/processing fee. In total, for 2005, 2006, and 2007, Abkey self- reported sales tax due and failed to remit to the Department sales tax reportedly due in the amount of $122,355.36. As a result of Abkey's failure to file the sales tax return, to remit the $122,355.36 in sales tax, and to remit timely sales tax, the Department assessed Abkey, as of October 29, 2009, $16,287.59 in interest, $4,891.73 in penalties, and $13,845.10 in administrative/collection/ processing fees. Additionally, for the month of February 2007, Abkey issued to the Department a dishonored check (electronic funds transfer) on March 23, 2007, in the amount of $18,254.00. The Department assessed a $150.00 return check fee for the dishonored check. Shortly after being notified of the dishonored check by the Department, Abkey paid the $18,254.00. Abkey has a significant history of delinquency in remitting payments to the Department. The Department made several attempts, unsuccessfully, to collect the delinquent tax liabilities, including issuing Tax Warrants. In January 2007, the Department sought to revoke Abkey's Certificate of Registration for delinquent returns and outstanding liability and engaged in an informal conference with Abkey. As a result of the informal conference, Abkey and the Department entered into a Compliance Agreement executed on February 15, 2010. The Compliance Agreement required Abkey, among other things, to remit all past due payments; for 12 months (January through December 2007), to timely file tax returns and to timely remit all sales tax due; and to make a down payment of $45,000.00 (in three monthly installments but no later than April 1, 2007), 11 monthly payments of $5,000.00 (beginning May 1, 2007), and a balloon payment of $141,982.43 on April 1, 2008. Further, regarding the balloon payment of $141,982.43, the Compliance Agreement provided that the balloon payment might be negotiated for another 12 months. However, in order for Abkey to take advantage of this provision, Abkey was required to be compliant with the terms of the Compliance Agreement and its account was required to be in good standing with the Department. In accordance with the Compliance Agreement, Abkey paid the down payment of $45,000.00 (in three monthly installments) and the 11 payments of $5,000.00 although the 11 payments were late. Additionally, for the period of January through December 2007, Abkey was late filing tax returns and remitting sales tax. Abkey requested a renewal of the Compliance Agreement. Despite the late payments, the Department approved the renewal of the Compliance Agreement. A Compliance Agreement Renewal was executed on May 1, 2008. It required Abkey, among other things, to remit all past due payments and to timely file tax returns and timely remit all sales tax due for the next 12 months (May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009); and to make 11 monthly payments of $5,000.00 (beginning May 1, 2008), and a balloon payment of $120,749.14 on April 1, 2009. Furthermore, regarding the balloon payment of $120,749.14, the Compliance Agreement Renewal provided that the balloon payment might be negotiated for another 12 months. However, in order for Abkey to take advantage of this provision, Abkey was required to be compliant with the terms of the Compliance Agreement Renewal and its account was required to be in good standing with the Department. Under the Compliance Agreement Renewal, Abkey made four payments of $5,000.00 but the payments were late. Abkey requested a reduction in the amount of the monthly payments from $5,000.00 to $2,000.00. The Department granted Abkey's request. Abkey made 12 payments of $2,000.00 but the payments were late. Additionally, for the period of May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009, Abkey was late filing tax returns and remitting sales tax. Further, Abkey failed to make the balloon payment of $120,749.14 that was due on April 1, 2009. Abkey did not request a renegotiation of the balloon payment. At that time, Abkey did not request another Compliance Agreement. As of September 28, 2010, Abkey owed the Department $122,355.36 in actual sales tax (per Abkey's sales tax returns), $9,500.00 in estimated tax, $4,419.73 in penalty2, $14,572.80 in administrative/collection/processing fees3, $25,032.28 in interest, and $20.00 in warrant fees; totaling $175,900.17. The Department seeks to revoke Abkey's Certificate of Registration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking the Certificate of Registration issued to and held by Abkey No. 1 Limited. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 18th day of February, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Certificate of Registration 46-8015920490-4 should be revoked for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Administrative Complaint) issued by the Department of Revenue (Department) on July 17, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the state revenue laws, including the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212. Respondent is an active for-profit Florida corporation and a licensed motor vehicle dealer located at 613 Southwest Pine Island Road, Suite 14, Cape Coral, Florida. For purposes of collecting and remitting taxes, Respondent is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2) and is required to comply with chapter 212. Annais German is the president and agent of the corporation. Respondent holds Certificate of Registration number 46- 8015920490-4. A certificate of registration is required in order to do business in the state and requires its holder to collect and remit sales tax pursuant to chapter 212. See § 212.05(1), Fla. Stat. A dealer must file with the Department sales tax returns and remit the tax collected on a monthly basis. See § 212.15(1), Fla. Stat. The Department is authorized to revoke a dealer's certificate of registration for failure to comply with state tax laws. See § 212.18(3)(e), Fla. Stat. Before revoking a certificate of registration, the Department must convene an informal conference that the dealer is required to attend. See § 213.692(1)(a), Fla. Stat. At the conference, the dealer may either present evidence to refute the Department's allegations of noncompliance or enter into a compliance agreement with the Department to resolve the dealer's failure to comply with chapter 212. Id. After a compliance agreement is executed by the dealer, the Department may revoke the certificate of registration if the dealer fails to comply with its terms and conditions. If a breach occurs, the entire amount is due and payable immediately. After Respondent failed to remit taxes that were due, the Department issued tax warrants and rendered judgment liens against Respondent in March, April, and December 2014 and April 2015. An informal conference was conducted with the taxpayer on April 7, 2015. Respondent was represented at the conference by Orlando German, who was given power of attorney by Annais German to represent the corporation. He signed an agreement, which required the entire balance to be paid by the end of the month. Two weeks later, Annais German requested that a new agreement be executed which allowed her to pay the delinquent taxes over a longer period of time. The Department agreed with her request. On April 23, 2015, Ms. German executed an Agreement reflecting that her corporation owes $7,297.52. See Pet'r Ex. 2, p. 1. The Agreement required Respondent to make a down payment of $2,500.00 on or before April 28, 2015, followed by ten monthly payments of 375.00 on the 28th of each month, and a final payment of $671.52 on April 28, 2016. Id. at p. 3. The Agreement required these payments to be made at the Fort Myers Service Center. Id. Payments required under a compliance agreement are always remitted to the local district office, rather than Tallahassee, to allow the Department to track the payment and ensure that it is being made in a timely fashion. The Agreement also required Respondent to "timely remit payment in full for all types of taxes, returns, and reports due from the Taxpayer for the duration of this agreement (and any extensions hereof) or for the next 12 months following the date of this agreement, whichever is longer." Id. at p. 1. In other words, besides making payments for past due taxes, interest, penalties, and fees, Respondent was required to timely file returns and pay current obligations as they became due during the life of the Agreement. The Agreement specifically provides that if the taxpayer fails to comply with the Agreement, revocation proceedings will be initiated without further notice. Respondent paid the $2,500.00 down payment one day late, but as of the date of the hearing in this case, no other payments for past or current obligations have been made. Returns for April and May 2015 were not timely filed. Respondent admits that in April 2015, at least three vehicles were sold, but its April return, when eventually filed, reported that no sales were made. Since filing its June and July 2015 returns, Respondent has filed no other returns. By failing to pay the monthly obligations required by the Agreement or any current obligations, Respondent has violated the Agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent's Certificate of Registration 46- 8015920490-4. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2016 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Masterson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Bureau The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Annais German World Champions Auto, Inc. 429 Northwest 38th Place Cape Coral, Florida 33993-5536 Annais German World Champions Auto, Inc. 613 Southwest Pine Island Road, Suite 14 Cape Coral, Florida 33991-1950 George C. Hamm, Acting General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 (eServed) Marshall C. Stranburg, Executive Director Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact On or before November 27, 1976, Petitioner did file a claim for refund of Florida corporate income tax for its fiscal year ending July 31, 1973. Such claim stated that a refund of $43,517 was due based on the decision reached in Leadership Housing, Inc., Case No. 74-6878, Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit. The claim referred to in paragraph 1 above was filed on or before the last day such claim could be filed. By letter dated December 6, 1976, Petitioner was notified by Respondent that it could not favorably act upon the claim as the allowability of the claim rested solely upon the validity of a position which Respondent disagreed and was litigating or intended to litigate. Respondent further stated in said letter that it was neither approving nor denying Petitioner's claim at that time. On September 1, 1978, Petitioner submitted another claim for refund for corporate income taxes for its fiscal year ending July 31, 1973. Such claim showed a lower amount of tax due to be refunded in accordance with the decision in S.R.G. Corporation v. Department of Revenue, State of Florida, 365 So.2d 687 (Fla. 1978), with the opinion entered June 30, 1978. On September 1, 1978, Petitioner also filed a claim for refund of corporate income taxes paid for its fiscal year ending February 28, 1977. The facts and circumstances supporting Petitioner's right to refund on the claim referred to in paragraph 5 above are the same as those supporting Petitioner's right to refund the claim which is the subject of this hearing. On October 10, 1978, Petitioner was notified by letter from Respondent that no action would be taken on either of the claims for refund pending review of the Florida Supreme Court of its decision in S.R.G. Corporation. In October, 1977, the Office of the Comptroller refunded the corporate income taxes per Petitioner's claim for refund relating to the fiscal year ending February 28, 1977 with certain adjustments consented to by Petitioner. On January 20, 1980, Petitioner was formally notified of Respondent's intent to deny Petitioner's claim for refund for corporate income taxes paid for fiscal year ending July 31, 1973. The sole question presented here is whether Respondent's denial of Petitioner's claim for refund based upon the grounds that "The claim for refund was not filed within the time limitations set forth in Section 214.16, Florida Statutes," is valid under the provisions of Chapter 120 and Chapter 214, Florida Statutes, as the same were in effect at the times set forth herein. Should it be determined that Petitioner's claim for refund was timely filed in accordance with the statutes herein set forth above, Respondent will not allege further or different reasons for denial of the claim and will forthwith refund to Petitioner the amounts claimed to be due. (The foregoing findings are taken directly from the Stipulation of Facts.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Office of the Comptroller enter a final order approving a refund to the Petitioner of that portion of its corporate income tax overpaid for the fiscal year ending in 1973. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of January, 1981. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Petitioner was the state agency responsible for licensing and monitoring the real estate profession in Florida. Respondents, Gruhler and Wilson were licensed as a real estate broker and real estate salesman, respectively, in this state. In April, 1988, Respondent Wilson was a 50% owner of Wilson's Cavalier Motor Inn, Inc., located in Sarasota, Florida and, that same month, listed it for sale with his employer, Respondent Gruhler. In June, 1988, Maurice G. Andersen and his wife, who were in the market to buy a motel, looked at the Cavalier and, after discussion with the Respondents, agreed to buy it for $181,900.00. Prior to agreeing to purchase the property, the Andersens were shown several papers regarding it, including the listing sheet prepared and provided by Mr. Wilson which reflected gross sales of $62,769.00 in 1986 and $65,413.00 in 1987. Based on his analysis of the property, Mr. Andersen made an offer to purchase it by Purchase agreement dated June 28, 1988, with which he enclosed a deposit of $1,000.00. Mr. Andersen now claims that at the time he felt the income figures provided by Mr. Wilson were too high for a 9 unit motel but assumed they were accurate. He claims his decision to purchase the property was based on the income and expense figures provided by Mr. Wilson incident to the purchase. A statement of earnings for the property for the period March 5, 1986 to February 28, 1987 , a term of approximately 14 months, reflected gross income of $72,360.70, expenses of $37,904.51, with a net income of $34,456.19. This statement which Andersen admits is accurate, is only one of four that he received. The closing transferring ownership to the Andersens took place on September 30, 1988. At that time, the parties executed a stock purchase agreement by which the Andersens purchased not only the assets of the motel but also 100% of the stock in the corporation which owned the motel and its assets. The corporation had been owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. During the first six months of Andersen's ownership of the property, the income was not up to his expectations. He claims he had been told he'd do a lot of business through advance reservations but, in fact, had only one and the six month gross income during that period was approximately the same amount the previous owner, Mr. Wilson, had done. In February, 1989, Mr. Wilson gave the Andersens a financial statement on the property and business for the period April 5 through September 30, 1988 which reflected gross income of $24,622.36 and expenses of $24,604.10, for a net income of $18.26. He also provided, sometime that year, a more detailed statement for the period from April 17, 1988 through June 30, 1988 which reflected, among other things, a gross income for that period of $9,956.00. In reality, the income for that period, as reflected on the Department of Revenue sales tax returns submitted by Mrs. Wilson, the bookkeeper, was $7,483.60, a difference of $2,472.40. This is a significant difference. All of the financial information provided to the Andersens by Mr. Wilson, except for that contained in the erroneous statement prepared by Mrs. Wilson, was provided by previous owners of the motel. Neither Mr. Gruhler nor Mr. Wilson was familiar in detail with the actual revenue and expense of the motel prior to the time Mr. Wilson took it over in 1988. Mr. Andersen's chief complaint lies with Mr. Wilson, who he believes intentionally misled him with false information to induce his purchase, and not with Mr. Gruhler. He is satisfied the latter did not intentionally try to trick him or commit fraud. Wilson purportedly advised him orally that the motel brought in approximately $3,000 per month when in reality it was only about two- thirds that figure. He admits to having an opportunity to examine the property thoroughly prior to the purchase and even had his accountant in Minnesota go over the listing sheet and the initially provided figures before agreeing to buy. The motel is a 9 unit operation with small rooms and one large efficiency apartment. There is no pool. The Andersens occupy one unit and their son occupies another. Mr. Andersen does not know if, even with this reduction from rental space, his operation is bringing in any less than Mr. Wilson did, and proudly claims that as an inexperienced operator, for the year past he did $2,000.00 more in business than did the experienced operator from whom Wilson took back the business. He asserts he had a good year even though the tourist activity for Sarasota County was down for the same period. Mr. Wilson was first contacted by Mr. Andersen in June, 1988, regarding several motels for sale advertised by Gruhler, for whom Wilson works. They met at one motel which Mr. Andersen did not like and then went to the Cavalier which Andersen liked because he could afford it. Andersen came back with his wife the following Monday and on the following day, met with Wilson at the Gruhler brokerage office where he made his offer on the property At the time they made the offer, the Andersens had had an opportunity to examine the property and had been given a copy of the listing sheet and the financial statement which, all agreed, was accurate and which were examined by Andersen's accountant before closing. This information was prepared by Mrs. Wilson from the business books which she kept. There is no evidence that Mr. Wilson knew, or had any reason to believe, that the information furnished to the Andersens at any time was incorrect. Though Mrs. Wilson admits that one document, that relating to the April 17 through June 30, 1988 income is in error, all other income information provided to the Andersens has been shown to be correct. The error was made when she incorrectly included in the income certain items which should not have been there. Even she did not know the report was incorrect at the time she presented it and first found out about her mistake when it was brought to her attention later by the Andersens after they checked the reported income against the sales tax forms. In light of the fact that she prepared those forms as well and that such forms are public records which are open for inspection, it is found to be unlikely she would have intentionally provided incorrect income figures to the Andersens who had already indicated their habit of having financial records checked by their accountant. In any case, there is no evidence she made Mr. Wilson or Mr. Gruhler aware of the mistake and that they thereafter acted on that information knowing it to be incorrect. The Reverend Robert Miller has known the Wilsons for 11 years and been their pastor for 9 years. Both are dedicated Christians and have a high reputation for truth and veracity in the community. In all the years he has known them there has never been a hint of dishonesty of the part of either.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint as to both Respondents, Walter Gruhler and Calvin L. Wilson, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6264 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not supported by the evidence of record. Not proven. The last sentence of this paragraph is rejected. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein as to ultimate facts. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas Fitzgibbons, Esquire 1800 Second Street, Suite 775 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
