94-004695
Division Of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco vs.
Holly Hill Aerie No. 4033 Foe, Inc., D/B/A Fraternal Order Of Eagles No. 4033
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 31, 1995.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 31, 1995.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )
13PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )
16DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES )
21AND TOBACCO, )
24)
25Petitioner, )
27vs. ) CASE NO. 94-4695
32)
33HOLLY HILL AERIE #4033 FOE INC. )
40d/b/a FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES )
46#4033, )
48)
49Respondent. )
51_________________________________)
52RECOMMENDED ORDER
54Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly
65designated Hearing Officer, Daniel M. Kilbride, held a formal hearing in this
77cause at Tallahassee, Florida, with video conferencing from Orlando, Florida, on
88December 1, 1994. The following appearances were entered:
96APPEARANCES
97For Petitioner: John F. Gilroy, Esquire
103Assistant General Counsel
106Department of Business and
110Professional Regulation
1121940 North Monroe Street
116Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
119For Respondent: Michael Dukeshier
123Post Office Box 821
127Holly Hill, Florida 32117
131Designated non-attorney representative
134STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
138Whether Respondent was deficient in reporting and remitting alcoholic
147beverage surcharges required for the audit period July 1, 1990 through October
15931, 1993.
161PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
163By a one count Notice to Show Cause, dated April 4, 1994, against
176Respondent the Division alleged underpayment of the alcoholic beverage surcharge
186tax resulting in a liability of $14,691.79 and a penalty of $3,672.96,
200constituting a violation of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes. Respondent
209indicated there were no disputed issues of material fact and requested an
221informal hearing. It was subsequently determined that disputed issues of fact
232did exist and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings
245for a formal hearing on August 23, 1994. On September 13, 1994, this matter was
260transferred to the undersigned Hearing Officer and set for hearing.
270At the hearing, the parties submitted a Pre-Hearing Stipulation containing
280nine stipulated findings of fact as well as the statements of the parties'
293positions.
294Petitioner contends that the stated surcharge and penalty liability was
304accurately determined by a Division audit, and that the total liability is owed
317by Respondent. Respondent has stipulated that the Division's audit accurately
327states the difference between the gallonage sold as reported by the Respondent
339and the inventory depleted by Respondent during the audit period. Respondent
350therefore does not contest the actual audit figures, but contends that the
362Division's actions in auditing Respondent by an inventory depletion method after
373Respondent had chosen to report on a sales method are in violation of the law.
388Respondent contends that the difference between the gallonage reported and the
399gallonage determined by audit to have been "sold" is attributable to: 1.
411overpouring beverages; 2. complimentary drinks provided to Eagles' members; and
4213. theft.
423Petitioner presented the pre-hearing stipulation as its only exhibit, and
433offered the testimony of Richard Schlusemeyer, an auditor with the Division.
444Respondent offered three exhibits which were accepted into evidence, and
454presented the testimony of Michael Dukeshier, Secretary of Respondent's
463fraternal organization.
465A transcript was not prepared. Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended
475order on December 12, 1994. Respondent has not submitted proposed findings of
487fact. My specific rulings on Petitioner's proposals are found in the Appendix
499attached hereto.
501FINDINGS OF FACT
5041. Respondent is Fraternal Order of Eagles #4033, whose address is 615
516Ridgewood Ave., Holly Hill, Fl. 32117 and holds license number 74-01574, Series
52811C from the Division.
5322. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco had adopted rules which
544allow licensees to submit monthly surcharge reports based on either a "sales
556method" or a "purchase method," both of which are defined in Rule 61A-4.063(4),
569F.A.C.
5703. The purchase method is described as taxing the alcoholic beverages as
582they come in the door, and the sales method as taxing them as they go out the
599door. The only significant difference between the two is that current inventory
611is not subject to tax under the sales method until it is actually sold.
625Otherwise, the sales depletion method of auditing is applied similarly under
636either method of reporting.
6404. On or about January, 1994, the Division conducted an audit of
652Respondent's records to determine alcoholic beverage surcharge payment
660compliance during the period July 1, 1990 through October 31, 1993. The audit
673method used is commonly referred to a "inventory depletion," or "sales
684depletion."
6855. Respondent selected the sales method of reporting surcharges due, and
696timely submitted a surcharge report and payment during each month of the audit
709period.
7106. Respondent's reports are based on cash register records which indicate
721the number of units of each type of beverage sold, i.e., mixed drink, beer or
736wine by the glass.
7407. Respondent's surcharge reports calculated gallonage of liquor based
749upon a factor of one ounce per drink.
7578. Respondent did not maintain records of any "complimentary" drinks
767served.
7689. Respondent did not file any police or casualty reports regarding
779alcoholic beverages which it contends are attributable to theft during the audit
791period.
79210. The Eagles' well ordered weekly sales records understate the amount of
804alcoholic beverages sold, due primarily to the existence of overpouring, wherein
815the actual amount of liquor sold exceeds the one ounce per drink estimate relied
829upon by Respondent in compiling its monthly reports.
83711. Respondent did not conduct an internal audit to determine whether its
849sales records were accurate, or take some other significant action over the 39
862months of the audit period to attempt to determine whether its primary
874assumption of one ounce per drink was accurately reflecting actual sales.
88512. Respondent's cash register tapes comprise an estimate of the amount of
897gallonage actually sold.
90013. The Division made no representations to Respondent which it might
911reasonably have relied in expecting that the accuracy of its monthly estimates
923of gallonage used, based on a one ounce per drink assumption, would not be
937subject to confirmation by audit.
94214. Respondent presented only anecdotal evidence to attempt to explain the
953admitted discrepancy between the actual gallonage used and the estimates
963contained in its sales tapes. The contention that some portion of the gallonage
976deficiency was attributable to pilferage by Eagles members or others, and an
988unspecified quantity of complimentary drinks for members or others, was not
999supported by any competent records or other evidence.
100715. The deficiency for Respondent Holly Hill Eagles represents thirty nine
1018and eight tenths percent (39.8 percent) of the total surcharge paid during the
1031audit period, which was $36,861.97.
103716. Since the completion of this audit and filing of the administrative
1049action, Respondent has adjusted its assumption to reflect an administrative sale
1060of one and a quarter (1.25) ounces per drink served. Respondent did not,
1073however, present any evidence as to whether that assumption is any more accurate
1086than the previous assumption.
109017. Based on this audit methodology, a surcharge liability of $14,691.83
1102exists.
110318. Respondent was aware of the Division's rule providing that surcharges
1114are calculated based upon gallonage of alcoholic beverages sold, which states:
1125If the vendor chooses the sales method, the
1133vendor will bear the burden of proof that the
1142method used accurately reflects actual sales.
114819. The surcharge deficiency determined by the Division to be owed in this
1161case includes consideration of all applicable allowances, including spillage
1170allowance of ten percent (10 percent) for draft beer and liquor, and five
1183percent (5 percent) for all other alcoholic beverage products, which was applied
1195and credited at the time of audit prior to stating the amounts owed.
120820. Based on this surcharge liability, the applicable penalty is
1218$3,672.96.
1220CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
122321. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the
1233parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1),
1244Florida Statutes (1994).
124722. This is not a case of first impression before the Division of
1260Administrative Hearings or the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. In
1271Division of Administrative Hearings consolidated Cases Nos. 93-0322 and 93-0329,
1281DABT v. Southeast Central, Inc. d/b/a The Pirates Den Seafood Cafe, and DABT v.
1295Central Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a The Seafood Place, Final Order dated September
13061993, the Division applied the sales depletion audit method to a
1317licensee/respondent reporting by the sales method. The audit procedures applied
1327by the Division in the instant case are the same in all relevant respects as
1342those applied in the above cases.
134823. Section 561.501, Florida Statutes (1991), imposes a surcharge on beer,
1359wine and liquor ". . . sold at retail for consumption on premises licensed by
1374the division as an alcoholic beverage vendor."
138124. "Sale" and "sell" are defined in Section 561.01(9), Florida Statutes
1392(1991), to ". . . mean any transfer of an alcoholic beverage for consideration,
1406any gift of an alcoholic beverage in connection with, or as a part of, a
1421transfer of property other than an alcoholic beverage for a consideration, or
1433the serving of an alcoholic beverage by a club licensed under the beverage law."
"1447Sale" as used in Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, shall occur at the serving
1460of any alcoholic beverage for consumption on premises. Rule 61A-4.063(1)(b),
1470F.A.C.
147125. Emergency Rule 7AER90-5, effective on July 1, 1990, contained
1481provisions for election of surcharge payment methods, spillage allowances, and
1491definitions of the terms "purchase" and "sale." The rule also required vendors
1503to maintain records for three years and made suggestions on what type of records
1517may be used to determine sales, as well as other reporting requirements, and
1530provided that the vendor will bear the burden of proof that its method of
1544reporting accurately reflects actual sales, which requirement was carried
1553forward into the current rule, as cited above. The emergency rule satisfied the
1566requirements in Section 561.501, F.S., that ". . . [t]he division shall
1578establish, by rule, the required reporting, collection, and accounting
1587procedures."
158826. Rule 7A-4.063, Florida Administrative Code, is also consistent with
1598the requirements in Chapter 561. This Rule became effective on January 15,
16101991. Respondent has not identified any provision of these rules which support
1622its contention that the Division acted unlawfully by auditing Respondent's
1632surcharge account by a sales depletion method after having allowed Respondent to
1644submit reports based on a sales method. Respondent's contention that it was
1656misled by the Division in this regard is not supported by the evidence.
166927. Respondent kept records of units of alcoholic beverages, particularly
1679liquor drinks sold, but failed to take any adequate steps to insure that its
1693recordkeeping was accurately reflecting actual sales. It would be irrational
1703and ineffective for the Division to ultimately rely on a licensee's sales
1715records, stated simply in units sold, and based upon an assumption adopted
1727unilaterally by the licensee that each drink contained no more than one ounce of
1741liquor. This is particularly true when the licensee's assumptions have been
1752acknowledged by the licensee to understate actual sales, and the only factual
1764dispute is the extent of that understatement.
177128. The issue is not whether the licensee accurately counted in units the
1784number of drinks which were rung up at its cash register, or whether those
1798totals were accurately and timely reported to the Division on a monthly basis.
1811The law provides for surcharge liability to be determined based upon actual
1823volumes in ounces, converted to gallonages for reporting purposes. Respondent
1833failed to accurately report its actual sales by a factor of close to 40 percent.
184829. Respondent's sales records do not disprove either the accuracy of the
1860audit or the propriety of the procedures used. Respondent failed to meet its
1873burden to either document that the audit method was inappropriate or that the
1886method was not correctly administered.
189130. Respondent asserts that the surcharge would not be applied to stolen
1903inventory. It is not contested that the surcharge would not apply to alcoholic
1916beverages found missing as a result of theft, as provided for in Rule 61A-
19304.063(7), F.A.C. However, Respondent did not present any evidence of theft. If
1942the Respondent wishes to account for unreported alcoholic beverages by claiming
1953that they were stolen, it is not unreasonable to require that they produce
1966documentation to establish a bona fide report of such theft or loss. Without
1979such a report, the unpaid surcharge cannot be excused on that basis. It is not
1994the Petitioner's burden to prove or explain what happened to the unreported
2006alcoholic beverages.
200831. Failure to report and remit surcharges, pursuant to Section 561.501,
2019F.S., results in a $250 civil penalty if the account is current at the time.
2034Section 561.501(1), F.S., requires the Division to ". . . assess a late penalty
2048of up to $10 per day or 1 percent of the amount due per day for each day after
2067the 20th of the month, whichever is greater." The Division may impose a civil
2081penalty not exceeding $1,000 for violations arising from a single transaction.
2093Section 561.29(3), F.S. Failure to pay the civil penalty shall result in a
2106suspension for such period of time as the division may specify. Section
2118561.29(3), Florida Statutes.
212132. The Division exercised its discretion in choosing the method or system
2133of auditing which would be used, and absent a showing that the Division's
2146exercise of authority was beyond the intent of the legislative mandate in the
2159enabling statute, or a showing that the decision was arbitrary and capricious,
2171the Division's decision must be respected. Grove Isle, Ltd., v. Florida
2182Department of Environmental Regulation, 454 So.2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). It
2194was not demonstrated at the hearing that the sales depletion method of auditing
2207was beyond the scope of the Division's powers relevant to surcharge or that the
2221audit method was arbitrary or capricious or even unreasonable.
223033. Petitioner presented clear and convincing proof that the Respondent,
2240Holly Hill Eagles, underreported its surcharge liability by $14,691.79 during
2251the period July 1, 1990 through October 31, 1993, contrary to Section 561.501,
2264F.S., and as alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, and on that basis is subject
2280to a penalty of $3,672.96.
2286RECOMMENDATION
2287Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
2300RECOMMENDED that Respondent Holly Hill Eagles be ordered to pay overdue
2311surcharges in the amount of $14,691.83 and a penalty of $3,672.96, and a civil
2327penalty of $250.00 suspended upon payment of the surcharge and penalty within 90
2340days of the entry of a Final Order in this matter.
2351DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon
2363County, Florida.
2365___________________________________
2366DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
2369Hearing Officer
2371Division of Administrative Hearings
2375The DeSoto Building
23781230 Apalachee Parkway
2381Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
2384(904) 488-9675
2386Filed with the Clerk of the
2392Division of Administrative Hearings
2396this 31th day of January, 1995.
2402APPENDIX
2403Petitioner's Proposed findings of facts.
2408Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-20
2413Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact.
2421COPIES FURNISHED:
2423John F. Gilroy, Esquire
2427Assistant General Counsel
2430Department of Business and
2434Professional Regulation
24361940 N. Monroe Street
2440Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
2443Michael Dukeshier
2445P. O. Box 821
2449Holly Hill, Florida 32117
2453Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel
2458Department of Business and
2462Professional Regulation
24641940 North Monroe Street
2468Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
2471John J. Harris, Acting Director
2476Department of Business and
2480Professional Regulation
24821940 North Monroe Street
2486Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
2489NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
2495All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the Recommended
2507Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit
2521written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit
2533written exceptions. You should consult with the agency that will issue the
2545final order in this case concerning their rules on the deadline for filing
2558exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order
2569should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 08/28/1996
- Proceedings: Final Order; Amended Final Order filed.
- Date: 12/12/1994
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order w/cover letter filed.
- Date: 12/01/1994
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 10/10/1994
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 12/1/94; at 9:00am; in Orlando)
- Date: 09/12/1994
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed.
- Date: 09/08/1994
- Proceedings: Ltr. to CCA from Michael Dukeshier re: Reply to Initial Order filed.
- Date: 08/30/1994
- Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
- Date: 08/25/1994
- Proceedings: Agency referral letter; Administrative Action; Request for Hearing Form filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
- Date Filed:
- 08/25/1994
- Date Assignment:
- 09/13/1994
- Last Docket Entry:
- 08/28/1996
- Location:
- Orlando, Florida
- District:
- Middle
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO