94-006636RX Irvin L. Olden vs. Department Of Revenue
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Thursday, April 20, 1995.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner lacked standing to challenge rule when agency withdrew reliance on rule for its assessment. Agency admitted rule could not be applied to Petitioner.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8IRVIN L. OLDEN, )

12)

13Petitioner, )

15)

16vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6636RX

21)

22STATE OF FLORIDA, )

26DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, )

30)

31Respondent. )

33_________________________)

34FINAL ORDER

36Pursuant to written notice a formal hearing was held in case number 93-

494326RGM before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the

61Division of Administrative Hearings, on February 24, 1993, in Tallahassee,

71Florida.

72APPEARANCES

73For Petitioner: Irvin L. Olden, pro se

809 Fox Valley Drive

84Orange Park, Florida 32073

88For Respondent: Francesco M. Negron, Jr.

94Jeffrey M. Dikman

97Assistant Attorneys General

100Tax Section, Capitol Building

104Department of Legal Affairs

108Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

111STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

115The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Irvin L. Olden, has standing

128to challenge the validity of Rule 12B-4.012(2), Florida Administrative Code,

138pursuant to Section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes.

144PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

146On November 23, 1994, Petitioner, Irvin L. Olden, filed a Petition for

158Administrative Determination of Invalidity challenging the validity of Rule 12B-

1684.012(2), Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56(1), Florida

177Statutes, with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The matter was assigned

188case number 94-6636RX. The case was assigned to Hearing Officer Don W. Davis by

202Order of Assignment entered December 8, 1994.

209On December 12, 1994, Hearing Officer Davis entered an Order Establishing

220Prehearing Procedure and a Notice of Hearing. The final hearing was scheduled

232for January 4, 1995. A Joint Motion for Continuance was subsequently granted by

245Order Granting Motion for Continuance entered December 22, 1995. The final

256hearing was rescheduled for February 24, 1995.

263On January 5, 1995, Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The

275motion was denied by Hearing Officer Davis by Order Denying Motion for Summary

288Judgment entered January 11, 1995. A Motion for Reconsideration of Summary

299Judgment, filed on January 17, 1995, was denied by an Order Denying Motion for

313Reconsideration entered January 24, 1995.

318On January 30, 1995, Petitioner filed an Objection and Request for Hearing

330Officer Recusal. On February 1, 1995, an Order of Recusal was entered. Hearing

343Officer Davis recused himself and the case was assigned to the undersigned.

355On February 17, 1995, Petitioner filed a Request for Determination/Delay

365Pending Determination. Petitioner for the third time sought a final

375determination of this matter by summary judgment. Petitioner also sought a

386continuance of the hearing. A motion hearing was held by telephone on February

39923, 1995 to consider Petitioner's Request. After hearing argument of the

410parties, the Request was denied.

415On February 24, 1995, immediately before the commencement of the final

426hearing of this case, Respondent filed Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack

438of Standing. Argument on the Motion was heard after the commencement of the

451final hearing. After hearing argument of the parties, the undersigned informed

462the parties that the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing would be granted by

477Final Order. The parties were also informed that they could file written

489arguments concerning the Motion by proposed final orders which would be

500considered before this Final Order was entered.

507On March 7, 1995, Petitioner filed an Amendment to Petition for

518Administrative Determination of Invalidity. Pursuant to the Amendment,

526Petitioner struck certain language from his Petition. Petitioner also filed a

537pleading titled "Objections/Arguments Against Motion for Dismissal".

545A transcript of the final hearing was filed on March 21, 1995. Proposed

558final orders were, therefore, to be filed on or before March 31, 1995.

571Respondent filed a proposed final order containing proposed findings of fact. A

583ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or

596indirectly in this Final Order or the proposed finding of fact has been accepted

610or rejected in the Appendix which is attached hereto. Petitioner did not file a

624proposed final order.

627FINDINGS OF FACT

6301. The Respondent, the Florida Department of Revenue (hereinafter referred

640to as the "Department"), notified Petitioner, Irvin L. Olden, by a Revised

653Notice of Intent to Make Documentary Stamp Tax and Discretionary Surtax Audit

665Changes (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Notice"), that he owed $164.45

678in documentary stamp tax, plus penalty of $41.11 and interest thru June 6, 1994

692of $70.71. See Petitioner's exhibit 3. The Revised Notice was entered May 31,

7051994.

7062. Mr. Olden was informed in the Revised Notice that the "legal basis" of

720the proposed audit changes was "Chapters 201.01, 201.02, 201.08, 201.17, F. S."

732and "Rules 12B-4.012(1) and (2), F.A.C."

7383. Mr. Olden filed a written protest to the Revised Notice by letter dated

752June 23, 1994. On July 12, 1994, the Department issued a letter in response to

767the written protest. Petitioner's exhibit 2. In pertinent part, Mr. Olden was

779informed:

780Your Quit Claim Deed recorded November 6, 1990,

788transferred half interest in real estate from

795Sue H. Olden to Irwin L. Olden. There was a

805$60,000 mortgage on the property. According

812to Rules 12B-1.012 (1) and (2), and 12B-1.013

820(25) and (32), Florida Administrative Code,

826this transfer is taxable because of the mortgage

834on the property. The rules state that any deed

843is taxable if consideration for the property is

851given. The rules go on to state that a mortgage

861on the property is consideration. The rules are

869attached.

870The letter incorrectly referred to Rule 12B-1.012(1) and (2), Florida

880Administrative Code, and Rule 12B-1/013(25) and (32), Florida Administrative

889Code. The Department intended to refer to Rules 12B-4.012 and 12B-4.013,

900Florida Administrative Code.

9034. Mr. Olden timely challenged the proposed assessment of tax pursuant to

915Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

9195. On November 23, 1994, Mr. Olden also filed a petition with the Division

933of Administrative Hearings challenging the validity of Rule 12B-4.012(2),

942Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.

9516. Rule 12B-4.012(2), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to

960as the "Challenged Rule"), provides, in pertinent part:

969(2) Definitions:

971(a) "Consideration" under s. 201.02, F.S.,

977includes but shall not be limited to, money

985paid or to be paid, the amount of any indebtedness

995discharged by a transfer of any interest in real

1004property, mortgage indebtedness and other

1009encumbrances which the real property interest

1015being transferred is subject to, notwithstanding

1021the transferee may be liable for such indebtedness.

1029Where property other than money is exchanged for

1037interest in real property, there is the presumption

1045that the consideration is equal to the fair market

1054value of the real property interest being trans-

1062ferred. [Emphasis added].

10657. Mr. Olden specifically challenged the portion of the Challenged Rule

1076emphasized in finding of fact 6. Mr. Olden alleged that the Challenged Rule is

1090an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Section

1101120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes.

11068. The language of the Challenged Rule which Mr. Olden has alleged is

1119invalid had an effective date of February 13, 1991.

11289. Although not clearly stated in Mr. Olden's petition, Mr. Olden's

1139standing to challenge the Challenged Rule is based upon the fact that the

1152Department relied on the Challenged Rule in the Revised Notice and the letter in

1166response to Mr. Olden's written protest.

117210. Pursuant to the Department's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing

1184filed by the Department on February 24, 1995, the Department stipulated to the

1197following:

11985. The Department stands by its assessment

1205in the assessment proceeding. The statute

1211which was recited in the Department's assessment

1218provides ample authority for the assessment

1224without reference to a subsequently promulgated

1230rule. . . .

12346. The Department does not seek to retroactively

1242apply a rule to a transaction which preceded the

1251effective date of that rule. Any statement in

1259the Notice of Proposed Assessment which indicates

1266an intention to apply a rule on a retroactive basis

1276is hereby withdrawn.

1279. . .

12829. However, while the rule is valid, it now

1291appears that Petitioner lacks standing to challenge

1298a rule which is not intended to be applied to

1308Petitioner. Petitioner has standing to challenge

1314the assessment and to challenge the Department's

1321prerule application of the Section 201.02, Fla.

1328Stat. (1990). . . .

133310. Now that the Department formally withdraws

1340any reference to the rule in support of its

1349assessment against the Petitioner, there is no

1356reason for this matter to proceed further.

136311. Counsel for the Department reiterated the Department's position at

1373hearing.

1374CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1377A. Jurisdiction.

137912. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the

1389parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.56, Florida

1401Statutes.

1402B. Burden of Proof.

140613. The burden of proof in this proceeding was on Mr. Olden. See Adam

1420Smith Enterprises v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 553 So.2d 1260,

1430(Fla. 1st DCA 1990); and Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental

1442Regulation, 365 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

1450C. Standing.

145214. Section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, the

1462following:

1463(1) Any person substantially affected by a

1470rule may seek an administrative determination

1476of the invalidity of the rule on the ground

1485that the rule is an invalid exercise of

1493delegated legislative authority.

149615. In order to conclude that a person is a "substantially affected"

1508person, it must be proved:

15131) that he will suffer injury in fact which

1522is of sufficient immediacy to entitle him to

1530a . . . hearing, and 2) that his substantial

1540injury is of a type or nature the proceeding

1549is designed to protect.

1553Florida Society of Ophthalmology v. Board of Optometry, 532 So.2d 1279, 1285

1565(Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So.2d 1333 (1989). See also Agrico

1578Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So.2d 478 (Fla.

15892d DCA 1981); and Professional Firefighters of Florida, Inc. v. Department of

1601Health and Rehabilitative Services, 396 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

161216. When the Department expressly withdrew any reliance upon the

1622Challenged Rule for its Revised Notice, Mr. Olden could no longer prove that he

1636would suffer any injury from the Challenged Rule. Any injury that Mr. Olden may

1650now suffer will be caused by Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, and the Department's

1663application thereof to Mr. Olden.

166817. Mr. Olden has failed to allege any facts in his petition, as amended

1682on March 7, 1995, that would support a finding that the Challenged Rule has had,

1697or will have, any application to Mr. Olden.

1705ORDER

1706Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

1719ORDERED that the Petitioner has failed to allege sufficient facts which

1730would support a finding that he is substantially affected by Rule 12B-4.012(2),

1742Florida Administrative Code, Therefore, the Petition for Administrative

1750Determination of Invalidity, as amended, filed by Irvin L. Olden is DISMISSED.

1762DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.

1774___________________________________

1775LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer

1780Division of Administrative Hearings

1784The DeSoto Building

17871230 Apalachee Parkway

1790Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

1793(904) 488-9675

1795Filed with the Clerk of the

1801Division of Administrative Hearings

1805this 20th day of April, 1995.

1811APPENDIX

1812Case Number 94-6636RX

1815The Department has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted

1827below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the

1839paragraph number(s) in the Final Order where they have been accepted, if any.

1852Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for

1865their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Olden did not file a proposed order.

1879The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact

18851 Accepted in 1.

18892 Accepted in 2.

18933 Accepted in 5.

18974 Accepted in 4.

19015 See 2-3 and 9.

19066 See 2 and 9.

19117 Accepted in 3.

19158 Accepted in 8.

19199 Accepted in 10.

192310 Accepted in 11.

192711 Accepted in 10.

1931COPIES FURNISHED:

1933Irvin L. Olden

19369 Fox Valley Drive

1940Orange Park, Florida 32073

1944Francesco M. Negron, Jr.

1948Assistant Attorney General

1951Tax Section, Capitol Building

1955Department of Legal Affairs

1959Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

1962Carroll Webb, Executive Director

1966Administrative Procedures Committee

1969Holland Building, Room 120

1973Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

1976Liz Cloud, Chief

1979Bureau of Administrative Code

1983The Capitol, Room 1802

1987Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

1990Larry Fuchs, Executive Director

1994Department of Revenue

1997104 Carlton Building

2000Tallahassee, Florida 32399

2003Linda Lettera

2005Department of Revenue

2008General Counsel

2010204 Carlton Building

2013Tallahassee, Florida 32399

2016NOTICE OF POSSIBLE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

2023ANY PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER MAY BE ENTITLED TO

2037JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW

2046PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH

2057PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE

2071AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY,

2083ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,

2096FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT

2109WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF

2124RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/20/1995
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 04/20/1995
Proceedings: CASE CLOSED. Final Order sent out. (Hearing held in case number 93-4326RGM on 2-24-93)
Date: 03/31/1995
Proceedings: Order Concerning Objections/Arguments Against Motion for Dismissal sent out. (if Petitioner desires a modification of dates for Filing proposed orders and issuance of final Order he should file an appropriate Motion)
Date: 03/29/1995
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order (for Hearing Officer Signature); Notice of Filing filed.
Date: 03/21/1995
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
Date: 03/07/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Objections/Arguments Against Motion for Dismissal; Amendment to Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity filed.
Date: 02/24/1995
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 02/24/1995
Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing filed.
Date: 02/23/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Request for Determination/Delay Pending Determination filed.
Date: 02/22/1995
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Prehearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 02/17/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Request for Determination/Delay Pending Determination filed.
Date: 02/01/1995
Proceedings: Order of Refusal sent out. (this matter is transferred to Hearing Officer Sartin)
Date: 01/30/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Objection and Request for Hearing Officer Refusal filed.
Date: 01/24/1995
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration sent out.
Date: 01/23/1995
Proceedings: (Respondent) Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment filed.
Date: 01/17/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment filed.
Date: 01/11/1995
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment sent out.
Date: 01/10/1995
Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Revenue`s Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
Date: 01/05/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion for Summary Judgment filed.
Date: 12/22/1994
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion for Continuance sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 2/24/95; 9:30am; Tallahassee)
Date: 12/20/1994
Proceedings: Joint Motion for Continuance filed.
Date: 12/16/1994
Proceedings: Respondent, Department Of Revenue`s Answer To Petition for Determination Of Invalidity Of Rule filed.
Date: 12/12/1994
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 1/4/95; 10:00am; Tallahassee)
Date: 12/12/1994
Proceedings: Order Establishing Prehearing Procedures sent out.
Date: 12/08/1994
Proceedings: Order of Assignment sent out.
Date: 12/02/1994
Proceedings: (Amended) Letter to Liz Cloud & Carroll Webb from Marguerite Lockard w/cc: Agency General Counsel sent out.
Date: 12/01/1994
Proceedings: Letter to Liz Cloud & Carroll Webb from Marguerite Lockard w/cc: Agency General Counsel sent out.
Date: 11/28/1994
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity filed.

Case Information

Judge:
LARRY J. SARTIN
Date Filed:
11/28/1994
Date Assignment:
02/01/1995
Last Docket Entry:
04/20/1995
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Department of Revenue
Suffix:
RX
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (7):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):