17-001562 International Academy Of Design, Inc. vs. Department Of Revenue Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, September 29, 2017.

Summary: Petitioners proved that they qualified for an exemption from sales tax under section 212.0602.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF DESIGN,

INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No . 17 - 1562

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF

MERCHANDISING AND DESIGN, INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 1563

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this matter was conducted before

J. Bruce Culpepper, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings, pursuant to sections 120.569 , 120.57(1),

and 120.80(14)(b) , Florida Statutes (2016), on June 27, 2017, by

video teleconference with sites in Tallahassee and Tampa,

Florida .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jo seph C. Moffa, Esquire

James H. Sutton, Esquire

James F. McAuley, Esquire

Jonathan W. Taylor, Esquire

Moffa, Sutton, and Donnini, P.A.

One Financial Plaza, Suite 2202

100 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

For Respondent: Ginette A lexandria Harrell, Esquire

Stephen Masterson, Esquire

Office of Attorney General

The Capi tol , Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Petitioners qualify for an

exemption from paying sales tax on the lease of real property

under section s 212.0602 and 212.08(7), Flori da Statutes (2013), 1/

from July 1, 2010, through April 30, 2013 .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

P etitioner s International Academy of Design , Inc., and

International Academy of Merchandising and Design, Inc.

(collectively referred to as ÐPetitionersÑ), 2/ contest a N otice of

Decision of Refund Denial issued by the Department of Revenue (the

ÐDepartmentÑ) on February 3, 2017. 3/ Petitioners specifically

challenge the DepartmentÓs decision to deny refunds for sales tax

Petitioners paid on the lease of real property for the period of

July 1, 2010, through April 30, 2013.

Petitioner s assert that they are entitled to refunds because

they qualified for the tax exemptions established in sections

212.0602 and 212.08(7)(o).

On March 3, 2017, Petitioner s timely requested a chapt er 120

hearing. On March 15, 2017, the Department forwarded the matters

to the Division of Administrative Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ) for assignment

of an Administrative Law Judge.

The final hearing was originally se t on May 19, 2017. At

Petitioner s Ó (unopposed) r equest, the final hearing was

rescheduled for June 27, 2017 , and held on that date .

At the final hearing, Petitioner s presented the testimony of

Bob Swain ( President of Petitioner International Academy of

Merchandising and Design ), Kenneth Zilch (Petitione rsÓ Vice

President of Tax) , and James Kane. Petitioner s Ó Exhibits 1

through 11 were admitted into evidence. The Department presented

the testimony of Heather Miller ( a Revenue Program Administrator )

and Chris W h ittier ( a Tax Conferee ). The DepartmentÓs Exhibits 1

through 3 were admitted into evidence.

A one - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed on

July 10, 2017. At the close of the hearing, the parties were

advised of a ten - day timeframe after receipt of the hearing

transcript at DOAH to file post - hearing submittals. Following

the unopposed request from Petitioners, the deadline for filing

post - hearing submissions was extended beyond, which waiv ed the

30 - day time period for filing the R ecommended O rder. 4/ Both

parties timely filed Proposed R ecommended Orders which were duly

considered in preparing this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Department is the Florida agency charged with

administering the stateÓs tax laws under chapter 212, Florida

Statutes. See § 212.18(2), Fla. Stat. T he DepartmentÓs

responsibilities specifically include the imposition and

collection of FloridaÓs sales tax pursuant to chapter 212.

2 . Petitioners are private colleges that provide post -

secondary education in design and technology. From July 2010

through April 2013, Petitioners specialized in courses and

degrees in areas including audio and video production and

recording, digital media production, fashion design, film,

graphic design, and photography. Petitioners offered both

BachelorÓs and Associate Ós d egrees. Petitioners were accredited

by the Accrediting Council for Independent Co lleges and Schools.

3 . Between July 2010 and April 2013, Petitioners enrolled

over 500 students a year at each campus. Petitioners were

licensed by the Florida Department o f Education as educational

entities under chapter 1005 , Florida Statutes . 5/

4 . Petitioner International Academy of Design was located

in Orlando, Florida. Petitioner International Academy of

Merchandising and Design was located in Tampa, Florida.

Petit ioners leased their campus properties in both Orlando and

Tampa. The lease payments Petitioners paid to their respective

landlords included sales tax.

5 . Through this administrative action, Petitioners seek a

refund from the Department of the sales tax t hey paid b etween

July 1, 2010, and April 30, 2013, on the property they leased .

Petitioners assert that they qualified for a tax exemption.

Petitioners contend that section 212.0602 entitle d them to an

exemption because they were primarily engaged in tea ching

activities or services described in section 212.031(1)(a)9 . ,

i.e. , Ðqualified production services . Ñ In addition, Petitioners

claim they were exempt under section 212.08(7)(o) because they

were Ðstate tax - supported schools.Ñ

6 . Petitioners each subm itted an Ð Application for Refund Î

Sales and Use Tax Ñ to the Department on or around July 25, 2013.

Petitioners sought a combined tax refund in the amount of

$914, 097.13. Of this amount, Petitioner International School of

Design applied for a refund of $ 159,785.20. Petitioner

International School of Merchandising and Design applied for a

refund of $754,311.93. 6 /

7 . On May 13, 2016, the Department issued an Internal

Technical Advisement (ÐITAÑ) stating that Petitioners were not

qualified for the exempti ons provided in either section 212.0602

or section 212.08(7)(o) . As articulated in the ITA, the

Department agreed that Petitioners conducted classes at fixed

locations in Florida, were licensed under chapter 1005, and

enrolled at least 500 students at eac h institution. However, the

Department determined that Petitioners had not demonstrated that

they were Ðprimarily engagedÑ in teaching students to perform the

activities or services described in section 212.031(1)(a)9. As

such, the Department deemed Peti tioners not eligi ble for a refund

of sales tax.

8 . On May 31, 2016, the Department issued a Notice of

Intent to Make Refund Claim Changes notifying Petitioners that

the Department intended to deny PetitionersÓ refund requests.

Thereafter, on July 1, 2016 , the Department issued each

Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial for the Refund

Claim.

9 . On August 29, 2016, Petitioners filed an informal

protest with the Department challengin g the proposed refund

denials.

1 0 . On February 3, 2017, the Depart ment issued a Notice of

Decision of Refund Denial officially denying both PetitionersÓ

requests for refunds of sales tax. The Department concluded that

Petitioners do not qualify for a sales tax exemption under either

section 212.0602 or section 212.08(7) (o) .

11. Bob Swain is the current President of Petitioner

International Academy of Merchandising and Design (Tampa). 7/ He

has served in thi s capacity since January 2014.

1 2 . At the final hearing, Mr. Swain described PetitionersÓ

student body as Ðcreativ e students.Ñ Mr. Swain testified that the

academic programs Petitioners taught between 2010 and 2013 were

fashioned to provide students with hands - on development and

training necessary for work in creative services and vocations.

Petitioners presented st udents a traditional educational roadmap

to help develop their individual artistic talent s.

1 3 . Mr. Swain explained that the courses and degrees his

school offered were not focused on a particular industry (such as

film production). Instead, his school e ndeavored to foster

creativity and teach to the Ðcraft.Ñ With this objective,

Pe titioners equipped students with skill sets they might use

should they choose to pursue a career in motion picture production

or a similar entertainment medium. Mr. Swain exp lained that the

courses Petitioners taught, including subjects such as animation,

audio and video production, photography, film, and graphic

design , could all be performed in connection with motion picture

production services. Mr. Swain expressed that app roximately two -

thirds of PetitionersÓ students receiv ed training in film - related

skills .

1 4 . Mr. Swain relayed that PetitionersÓ campuses included

lecture rooms, design studios, drafting labs, film production

studios, a green room for animation, photograp hy studios,

recording studies, sewing and pattern drafting labs, and computer

labs. Petitioners use these facilities to instruct students on

design, programming, sound and video editing, word processing,

and database management.

Course Descriptions :

1 5 . From July 2010 through April 2013, Petitioner

International Academy of Design (Orlando) offered degree programs

in: Advertising Design (marketing) , Digital Media Production

(also referred to as Interactive Media) , Fashion Design and

Merchandising, Graphic Design , Game Design and Production ,

Information Technology , Interior Design , Internet Marketing ,

Retail Merchandise Management , and Web Design and Development.

Over that same period of time, Petitioner International Academy

of Merchandising and Design (T ampa) offered degrees in:

Advertising Design (marketing) , Animation , Audio Production ,

Building Information Modeling , Digital Media Production , Digital

Photography , Fashion Design , Fashion Merchandising , Game Design

and Production , Graphic Design (Visual Communication) , Interior

Design , Photography , and Post Production.

1 6 . The coursework required to earn those degrees was

described as follows:

a. Advertising Design (Marketing) : PetitionersÓ

Advertising Design degree s and curricul a provided students wit h

training to design , create and implement graphic , typographic ,

photographic , and audio/video elements in the concepts of

marketing, business, and advertising. The primary coursework

included Advertising Concepts , Elements of Visual Advertising ,

Principl es of Marketing , Photography for Advertising , Audio/Video

for Advertising , Art Direction Project , Advertising Design

Capstone , Design Fundamentals , Introduction to Drawing , Digital

Illustration , Typography , Digital Imaging , Storyboarding ,

Creativity in Des ign , Graphic Design , Advertising Design

Internship or Capstone , and Advertising Design Portfolio.

b. Animation : The Animation degree curriculum offered

students training necessary to create 2D animation, 3D animation,

character development, game art, and special effects animation to

enter the field of computer animation. The primary coursework

included: Animation Fundamentals , 2D Animation , 3D Animation ,

Animation Physics , Studio Techniques , Advanced Modeling ,

Production Studio , Animation Capstone , Digi tal Imaging , Drawing

Techniques , Texture and Lighting , Animation Internship or

Capstone , and Animation Portfolio.

c. Audio Production : The Audio Production degree offered

students training in recording and mixing and mastering for

audio, film, and video productions. The primary coursework

included: Digital Audio Specifications , Digital Audio

Workstations , Introduction to Audio Production , Audio Recording

Techniques , Studio Design and Maintenance , Music Design and

Synthesis , Recording on Location , Mixing and Mastering , Surround

Sound Techniques , Studio Concentration , Music Composition and

Songwriting , Digital Composition , Foley for Film and Television ,

Session Recording and Mastering , and Audio Prod uction Internship

or Capstone.

d. Digital Media Producti on : The Digital Media Production

degree offered students training in the production of multimedia

presentations thr ough web design, print media, 3 D modeling

animation, digital audio, and video production. The primary

required coursework included: Design Fundamentals , Web Design ,

Drawing , Digital Illustration , Typography , Digital Imaging ,

Visual Composition , Interactive Media , Audio Production ,

Screenwriting , Video Production , Digital Imaging , Interactive

Design , Video Editing , Motion Graphics , Media Prod uction , Media

Distribution , Internship or Capstone , and Digital Media

P roduction Portfolio.

e. Digital Photography : The Digital Photography degree

offered students training in photographic skills and production

of photographs for use in digital format. The primary required

coursework included: Photography Foundation , Lighting Basics ,

Photoshop , Photojournalism , Portrait Photography , Digital Pre -

Press for Photographers , Still Life and Product Photography ,

Digital Presentation Techniques , and Photo graphy Portfolio

Presentation.

f. Fashion Design and Fashion Merchandising : The Fashion

Design and the Fashion Merchandising degrees provided students

with training to design, prepare, and manage original materials

and wardrobe, as well as the ability to market and promote their

products. The primary coursework included: Visual

Merchandising , Electronic Marketing , Introduction to Fashion ,

Fashion Sketching , Clothing Construction , Computer Graphics for

Fashion Design , Pattern Drafting , Draping , Fashion Design ,

Apparel Production , Pattern Techniques , Textile Design , and

Fashion Internship or Capstone.

g. Game Design and Production : The Game Production degree

provided students with training in the creation, development, and

production of interactive 2D and 3D co mputer games. The primary

coursework included: Digital Imaging , Drawing Techniques ,

Principles of Design , Modeling , Game Play Scripting , Texture and

Lighting , Storyboard and Storytelling , Web Game Development ,

Sound Design , Level Design , Game Production , Internship or

Capstone , and Game Portfolio.

h. Graphic Design (Visual Communication) : The Graphic

Design degree provided students with training to create and

produce editorial, digital, and web designs. The primary

coursework included: Design Fundamen tals , Web Design ,

Introduction to Drawing , Digital Illustration , Typography ,

Digital Imaging , Visual Composition , Interactive Media , Design

Process , Graphic Design , Advertising Design , Print Production

Internship or Capstone , and Graphic Design Portfolio.

i. Interior Design : The Interior Design degree offered

training in enhancing the function, quality, and safety of

interior spaces. The primary required coursework included:

Drafting , Sketching and Rendering , Textiles , Interior Design

Issues and Program ming , Resources and Materials , Digital Media

for Interior Design , Computer Aided Design , Spatial Environments ,

Interior Design , Lighting Design for Interiors , Interior Design

Project , and Interior Design Portfolio.

j. Professional Photography : The Profes sional Photography

degree offered students training in photographic skills through

technical competency in lighting, image capture and manipulation,

and media production. The primary required coursework included:

Design Fundamentals , Image Software , Foun dations of Photography ,

Integrated Media , Color Management , Environmental Lighting ,

Portraiture , Location Lighting , People Photography , Studio

Lighting , Video , Commercial Photography , Visual Journalism , Web

Design for Photographers , and Profess ional Photog raphy Portfolio.

k. Web Design and Development : The We b Design and

Development degree offered students training in the development

and programming of graphics, interactivity, and text for use on

the web. The primary required coursework included: Media Design

Concepts , Web Design Fundamentals , Programming for the Internet ,

Usability and Interface Design , Multimedia Design , Advanced

Scripting Techniques , Content Management Systems , Website

Advertising and Design , Interactive Mobile Application , Project

Ma nagement , Designing for Server - Side Technology , Advanced

Server - Side Technology , Database , Programming , Web

Commercialization , Web Administration , Internship or Capstone ,

and Web Design Project.

1 7 . As the last course for their degrees, as well as a

gradu ation requirement, students were required to develop and

complete a Ð Portfolio. Ñ For their Portfolio, students produced

and created a collection of work applying the skills taught in

their degree programs. For example, Mr. Swain explained that the

Animat ion degree required students to develop an animation

program. Similarly, the Game Production degree required students

to create a computer game or software design. At the end of

their final semester, students presented their Portfolios to

PetitionersÓ fa culty and staff, as well as potential employers to

demo nstrate their capabilities.

PetitionersÓ Enrollment Statistics

1 8 . International Academy of Design (Orlando) : From

July 2010 through April 2013, approximately 95 percent of the

students enrolled at the International Academy of Design studied

degrees in: Advertising Design (marketing) , Digital Media

Production , Fashion Design , Game Design and Production , Graphic

Design , Interior Design , and Web Design and Development,

specifically:

a. 2010 School Ye ar : Total enrollment of 1,710 students.

Of these students, 634 were enrolled in Fashion Design and

Merchandising; 304 in Game Design; 225 in Digital Media

Production; 262 in Interior Design; 99 in Advertising Design

(marketing); and 185 in Graphic Design (Visual Communication).

b. 2011 School Year : Total enrollment of 1,328 students.

Of these students, 522 were enrolled in Fashion Design and

Merchandising; 226 in Game Design; 169 in Digital Media

Production; 170 in Interior Design; 62 in Advertising De sign

(marketing); and 179 in Graphic Design (Visual Communication).

c. 2012 School Year : Total enrollment of 980 students. Of

these students, 365 were enrolled in Fashion Design and

Merchandising; 139 in Game Design; 94 in Digital Media

Production; 75 i n Interior Design; 25 in Advertising Design

(marketing); 203 in Graphic Design (Visual Communication); and

nine in Web Design and Development.

d. 2013 School Year : Total enrollment of 626 students.

Of these students, nine were enrolled in Animation; 2 39 in

Fashion Design and Merchandising; 79 in Game Design; 64 in

Digital Media Produ ction; 20 in Interior Design; ten in

Advertising Design (marketing); 129 in Graphic Design (Visual

Communication); and seven in Web Design and Development.

1 9 . Internation al Academy of Merchandising and Design

(Tampa) : From July 2010 through April 2013, approximately

90 percent of the students enrolled at Petitioner International

Academy of Merchandising and Design studied degrees in:

Advertising Design (marketing), Anim ation, Audio Production,

Building Information Modeling, Digital Media Production, Digital

Photography, Fashion Design, Fashion Merchandising, Game Design

and Production, Graphic Design (Visual Communication), Interior

Design, Photography, and Post Producti on, specifically:

a. 2010 School Year : Total enrollment of 2,565 students.

Of these students, 35 were enrolled in Advertising Design; 216 in

Animation; 597 in Audio Production; 25 in Digital Media

Production; 535 in Fashion Design; 52 in Game Design; 30 2 in

Interior Design; 313 in Photography; and 250 in Graphic Design

(Visual Communication).

b. 2011 School Year : Total enrollment of 1,742 students.

Of these students, 26 were enrolled in Advertising Design; 112 in

Animation; 472 in Audio Production; 11 in Digital Media

Production; 287 in Fashion Design; 52 in Game Design; 180 in

Interior Design;196 in Photography; 60 in Video Production, and

200 in Graphic Design (Visual Communication).

c. 2012 School Year : Total enrollment of 1,265 students.

Of thes e students, 15 were enrolled in Advertising Design; 54 in

Anima tion; 329 in Audio Production; five in Digital Media

Production; 209 in Fashion Design; 34 in Game Design; 136 in

Interior Design; 181 in Photography; 26 in Video Production, and

184 in Graphic Design (Visual Communication).

d. 2013 School Year : Total enrollment of 819 students. Of

these students, four were enrolled in Advertising Design; 30 in

Anima tion; 244 in Audio Production; two in Digital Media

Production; 139 in Fashion Design; 21 in G ame Design; 103 in

Interi or Design; 86 in Photography; nine in Video Production, and

124 in Graphic Design (Visual Communication).

20 . Petitioners also applied to the Department for a refund

of sales tax under section 212.08(7)(o). Section 212.08(7)(o),

directs that Ðleases to state tax - supported schools, colleges, or

universitiesÑ are specifically exempt from the tax imposed under

chapter 212. Petitioners assert that between July 1, 2010, and

April 30, 2013, they participated in several financial aid

pr ograms which they administered for the benefit of their

students. Two of these programs included the Florida Bright

Futures Program (ÐBright FuturesÑ) and the federal Workforce

Investment Act.

2 1. Bright Futures is a financial aid program awarded to

stud ents who meet specific academic requirements upon high school

graduation and continue to maintain specific grades and earned

hours while in college. Mr. Swain testified that Bright Futures

pa id tuition directly to Petitioners on behalf of the qualifying

s tudents.

22 . The Workforce Investment Act was a federal program

administered by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity

and managed by local workforce investment boards. ( See Workforce

Investment Act of 1998 , P.L. 105 - 220, 20 U.S.C. § 9201, which was

repealed in 2014. )

23 . Because they received scholarship money from these

financial aid programs, Petitioners claim that they were Ðstate

tax - supported schools.Ñ Between July 1, 2010, and April 30,

2013, Petitioner International Academy of Design (Or lando)

received approximately $95,000 in scholarship funds from Bright

Futures. Petitioner International Academy of Merchandising and

Design (Tampa) received a pproximately $177,000 over the same

period. Petitioners did not present evidence of any funds t hey

received from the Workforce Investment Act bet ween July 2010 and

April 2013.

24 . Chris Whittier, a Tax Specialist for the Department,

was assigned to review PetitionersÓ refund applications.

Mr. Whittier subsequently issued the DepartmentÓs Notice o f

Decision of Refund D enial, dated February 3, 2017.

25 . At the final hearing, Mr. Whittier explained that in

considering PetitionersÓ refund requests, the Department reviewed

PetitionersÓ respective course catalogues, curricula, and

academic objectives. 8 / Regarding Petitioners Ó request for a tax

exemption under section 212.0602, Mr. Whittier conveyed that

Petitioners offered multiple degree programs in a broad range of

industries. The Department acknowledged that these degrees could

prove useful for stu dents who desired careers in movie

production. However, the Department ascertained that the job

skills Petitioners taught could be applied to a number of

activities or businesses , not just Ðqualified production

services . Ñ Therefore, the Department determ ined that Petitioners

were not Ðprimarily engagedÑ in teaching students skills or

trades Ðperformed directly in connection with the production of a

qualified motion pictureÑ as delineated in section

212.031(1)(a) 9 .

26 . Mr. Whittier further expressed that to qualify for an

exemption under section 212.0602, Petitioners must show that the

job training they provided was directly connected to the actual

production of a Ðqualified motion picture.Ñ In other words, for

Petitioners to establish that they taught th e Ðactivi ties or

services described in s. 212.031(1)(a)9 . ,Ñ PetitionersÓ students

must receive su bstantive instruction on a bona fide motion picture

production.

27 . Mr. Whittier remarked that Petitioners never submitted

an example of any motion picture tha t either they or their

students developed or produced. Further, Petitioners did not

provide evidence that any of their former students have found

employment in the motion picture industry. Consequently,

Petitioners did not establish that they qualified f or the tax

exemption authorized under section 212.0602, and are not entitled

to a refund of the sales tax they paid on the property they

leased.

28 . Regarding Petitioners Ó request for a tax exemption

under section 212.08(7)(o) as Ðstate tax - supported scho ols,Ñ the

Department argues that Petitioners did not meet the minimum

requirements for the exemption. Initially, the Department

asserts that simply receiving money through Bright Futures or the

Workforce Investment Act is not enough to characterize a priv ate

college as a Ðstate tax - supported school.Ñ Funds from these

scholarship programs are awarded to students to assist with their

college tuition. The Florida Legislature did not appropriate tax

mon ey to ÐsupportÑ Petitioners.

29 . In addition, the funds from Bright Futures and the

Workforce Investment Act are not Ðstate taxÑ funds. Bright

Futures is funded by proceeds from the Florida - run lottery

program. The Workforce Invest ment Act is a federal program.

30 . Further, by its terms, exemptions under se ction

212.08(7) (o) do not inure to any transaction that is otherwise

taxable under chapter 212, unless the entity Ð has obtained a

sales tax exemption certificate from the department or the entity

obtains or provides other documentation as required by the

d epartment.Ñ Petitioners have never applied for, nor have they

been provided, a sales tax exemption certificate from the

Depa rtment. Therefore, Petitioners are not eligible for the

exemption in section 212.08(7) (o) .

31 . Based on the evidence and testimon y presented during

the final hearing, Petitioners proved, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that they qualify for an exemption under section

212.0602. Accordingly, the Department should take the necessary

steps to refund the amount of sales tax Petition ers paid on the

lease of real property from July 1, 2010, through April 30, 2013.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction

over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. See

§§ 72.011(1)(a), 120.569, 12 0.57(1), and 120.80(14)(b), Fla. Stat.

(2016).

33 . Petitioners contest the DepartmentÓs denial of their

request s for a refund of sales tax Petitioners paid on the lease

of real property for the period of July 1, 2010, through April 30,

2013. Petitioners claim they are entitled to refunds by

qualifying for the tax exemptions under: 1) section 212.0602

because they are primarily engaged in teaching Ðactivities and

services described in s. 212.031(1)(a)9 . ,Ñ and 2) section

212.08(7)(o) because they are Ðstat e tax - supported schools.Ñ

34 . Exemptions to the tax statutes are special favors

granted by the Legislature and are to be strictly construed

against the taxpayer. DepÓ t of Rev . v. Daystar Farms, Inc. , 803

So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla. 2 d DCA 2002); and State ex r el. Szabo Food

Servs . , Inc. v. Dickinson , 286 So. 2d 529, 530 - 531 (Fla. 1973).

35 . In this proceeding, the Department bears the initial

burden of showing 1) that an assessment has been made against the

taxpayer, and 2) the factual and legal grounds upon w hich the

assessment was made. See § 1 20.80(14)(b)2., Fla. Stat.; and

IPC Sports, Inc. v. State, DepÓt of Rev . , 829 So. 2d 330, 332

(Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

36 . Once the Department establishes the factual and legal

grounds for the assessment, the burden shift s to Petitioners to

demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the

assessment is incorrect. IPC , 829 So. 2d at 332; and

§ 120.57(1)(j) , Fla. Stat . Accordingly, Petitioners carry the

ultimate burden of proving that they are entitled to receive a

tax refund.

3 7 . The preponderance of the evidence standard is

applicable to this case. See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.; DepÓ t

of Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. & Investor Prot. v. Osborne Stern

& Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996). Preponderance of the evi dence

is defined as Ðthe greater weight of the evidence,Ñ or evidence

that Ðmore likely than notÑ tends to prove a certain proposition.

S. Fla. Water Mgmt. v. RLI Live Oak, LLC , 13 9 So. 3d 869, 872

(Fla. 2014).

38 . The expressed purpose of section 212.06 02 is to

Ðfacilitate investment in education and job training.Ñ Section

212.0602 further states, in pertinent part:

[T]here is also exempt from the taxes levied

under this chapter, subject to the provisions

of this section, the . . . lease of real

propert y by any entity, institution, or

organization that is primarily engaged in

teaching students to perform any of the

activities or services described in

s. 212.031 (1)(a)9., that conducts classes at

a fixed location located in this state, that

is licensed under chapter 1005, and that has

at least 500 enrolled students. Any entity,

institution, or organization meeting the

requirements of this section shall be

deemed to qualify for the exemptions in

ss. 212.031 (1)(a)9. and 212 .08(5)(f) and

(12) . . . . Nothing in this section shall

preclude an entity described in this section

from qualifying for any other exemption

provided for in this chapter.

39 . Accordingly, pursuant to s ection 212.0602, Petitioners

were exempt from payi ng sales tax on their lease of real property

from July 2010 to April 2013, if they:

1) were p rimarily engaged in teaching students to perform

any of the activities or services described in

s. 212.031(1)(a)9 . ;

2) operated at a fixed lo cation in the stat e of Florida;

3) were licensed under chapter 1005; and

4) had at least 500 enrolled students.

40 . The Department does not dispute that Petitioners

established the last three prongs of the requirements in

section 212.0602. Petitioners operated in a fixed location in

Florida. Petitioners were licensed by the state of Florida under

chapter 1005. And, Petitioners enrolled at least 500 students

from July 1, 2010, through April 30, 2013, at each Florida

location. Therefore, the central dispute in this administrative

proceeding is whether Petitioners were Ð primarily engaged in

teaching students to perform any of the activities or services

described in s. 212.031(1)(a)9.Ñ

41 . Section 212.031(1)(a)9. states:

Property used as an integral part of the

perfor mance of qualified production services.

As used in this subparagraph, the term

Ðqualified production servicesÑ means any

activity or service performed directly

in connection with the production of a

qualified motion picture, as defined in

s. 212.06 (1)(b), [ 9/ ] and includes:

a. Photography, sound and recording,

casting, location managing and scouting,

shooting, cr eation of special and optical

effects, animation, adaptation (language,

media, electronic, or otherwise),

technological modifications, computer

graphics, set and stage support (such as

electricians, lighting designers and

operators, greensmen, prop manager s and

assistants, and grips), wardrobe (design,

preparation, and management), hair and makeup

(design, production, and application),

performing (such as acting, dancing, and

playing), designing and executing stunts,

coaching, consulting, writing, scoring,

composing, choreographing, script

supervising, directing, producing,

transmitting dailies, dubbing, mixing,

editing, cutting, looping, printing,

processing, duplicating, storing, and

distributing;

b. The design, planning, engineering,

construction, alter ation, repair, and

maintenance of real or personal property

including stages, sets, props, models,

paintings, and facilities principally

required for the performance of those

services listed in sub - subparagraph a.; and

c. Property management services dir ectly

related to property used in connection with

the services described in sub - subparagraphs

a. and b.

4 2. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the

record, Petition er s proved that , between July 2010 and April

2013, they were Ðprimarily engaged Ñ in teaching their students to

perform Ðany of the activities or services described in section

212.031(1)(a)9.Ñ T he resolution of this matter center s on

statutory interpretation.

43 . The interpretation of section 212.0602 begins with the

question of whe ther the language is clear and unambiguous. ÐWhen

construing a statute, the court must first look to the plain

meaning of the words used by the Legislature.Ñ BrandyÓs Prods.

v. DepÓt of Bus. & ProfÓ l Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages &

Tobacco , 188 So. 3 d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (citing Verizon Bus.

Purchasing, LLC v. Dep Ó t of Rev . , 164 So. 3d 806, 809 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2015)). ÐWhen a statute is clear, a court may not look

behind the statute's plain language or resort to rules of

statutory construction to de termine legislative intent.Ñ DepÓ t

of High. Saf. & Motor Veh. v. Peacock , 185 So. 3d 632, 633 (Fla.

1st DCA 2016). See also Holly v. Auld , 45 0 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla.

1984) (Ð [W]hen the language of the statute is clear and

unambiguous and conveys a clear an d definite meaning, there is no

occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation

and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious

meaning.Ñ ). The undersigned concludes that the language in

section 212. 0602 is clear and unam biguous.

4 4 . Section 212.0602 does not define the term Ðprimarily

engaged.Ñ Where the Legislature has not specifically defined the

words used in a statute, Ðthe language should be given its plain

and ordinary meaning.Ñ Greenfield v. Daniels , 51 So. 3d 4 21, 426

(Fla. 2010) (citing Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty. v. Survivors

Charter Schs., Inc. , 3 So. 3d 1220, 1233 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Fla.

Birth - Relate d Neurological Injury Comp. AssÓ n v. Fla. Div. of

Admin. Hrgs. , 686 S o. 2d 1349, 1354 (Fla. 1997)).

4 5 . The words ÐprimarilyÑ and ÐengagedÑ have plain and

ordinary meanings. ÐPrimarilyÑ is defined as Ð for the most

part.Ñ ÐEngagedÑ is de fined as Ð involved in activity.Ñ M erriam -

W ebster D ictionary , at http://www.merriam - webster.com . See

Seagrave v. State , 802 S o. 2d 281, 286 (Fla. 2001) (ÐWhen

necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning of words [in a statute]

can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary.Ñ); see also

Raymond James Fin. Servs. v. Phillips , 110 So. 3d 908, 910

(Fla. 2 d DCA 2011) (ÐIt is appropriat e to refer to dictionary

definitions when construing statutes or rules.Ñ). Therefore,

using the plain and ordinary meaning of the term Ðprimarily

engaged,Ñ to qualify for the tax exemption under section

212.0602, Petitioners , Ðfor the most part,Ñ must be Ðinvolved inÑ

teaching students to perform Ðany of the activities or services

describ ed in section 212.031(1)(a)9.Ñ

46 . The undersigned finds that, based on the evidence in

the record, Petitioners proved that they taught their students to

perform Ðactivit ies or services described in section

212.031(1)(a)9.Ñ The list of activities or services described in

section 212.031(1)(a)9. includes: photography, sound and

recording, (film) shooting, creation of special and optical

effects, animation, adaptation (lan guage, media, electronic, or

otherwise), technological modifications, computer graphics, set

and stage support, lighting designers and operators, wardrobe

(design, preparation, and management), hair and makeup (design,

production, and application), perform ing (acting, dancing, and

playing), (film) consulting, writing, scoring, composing, script

supervising, directing, producing, dubbing, mixing, editing,

cutting, looping, printing, processing, duplicating, storing, and

distributing, as well as the design, p lanning, engineering,

construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance of real or

personal property including stages, sets, props, models,

paintings, and facilities principally required for the

performance of those services.

47 . The documentary evidence (primarily PetitionersÓ course

catalogues), as well as witness testimony (principally Mr. Swain)

establishes that, between July 1, 2010, and April 30, 2013,

Petitioners offered the following academic instruction:

a. Petitioner International Academy of Des ign (Orlando) :

Petitioner International Academy of Design offered degree

programs in Digital Media Production, Fashion Design, Graphic

Design, Game Design and Production, Interior Design, Internet

Marketing, Retail Merchandise Management, and Web Design a nd

Development. Further, this Petitioner offered classes in Audio

Production, Clothing Construction, Computer Aided Design,

Computer Graphics for Fashion Design, Design Fundamentals,

Drafting, Draping, Drawing, Digital Illustration, Digital

Imaging, Digit al Media for Interior Design, Fashion Design,

Fashion Sketching, Game Play Scripting, Interactive Design,

Interactive Media, Interior Design Issues and Programming,

Lighting Design for Interiors Media Distribution, Media

Production, Modeling, Motion Graphi cs, Pattern Drafting,

Principles of Design, Resources and Materials, Screenwriting,

Sketching and Rendering, Spatial Environments, Storyboard and

Storytelling, Textiles, Texture and Lighting, Typography, Video

Editing, Video Production, Visual Composition, and Web Design .

b. Petitioner International Academy of Merchandising and

Design (Tampa) : Petitioner International Academy of

Merchandising and Design offered degree programs in Animation,

Audio Production, Digital Media Production, Digital Production,

F ashion Design and Marketing, Game Production, Graphic Design,

Interior Design, Post Production, Photography, Retail Merchandise

Management, and Web Design and Development. This Petitioner

offered classes in Advanced Modeling, Animation Physics, Apparel

Pr oduction, Audio Production, Audio Recording Techniques,

Clothing Construction, Computer Graphics for Fashion Design,

Design Process, Digital Composition, Digital Illustration,

Digital Imaging, Draping, Drawing Techniques, Environmental

Lighting, Fashion De sign, Fashion Sketching, Foley for Film and

Television, Game Play Scripting, Interactive Design, Interactive

Media, Interior Design, Lighting Basics, Lighting Design for

Interiors, Location Lighting, Mixing and Mastering, Modeling,

Motion Graphics, Music C omposition and Songwriting, Music Design

and Synthesis, Pattern Drafting, Pattern Techniques, People

Photography, Photography Foundation, Principles of Design,

Portraiture, Production Studio, Recording on Location,

Screenwriting, Session Recording and Mast ering, Sound Design,

Storyboard and Storytelling, Studio Concentration, Studio Design

and Maintenance, Studio Lighting, Studio Techniques, Surround

Sound Techniques, Textile Design, Texture and Lighting,

Typography, Visual Composition, Video, Video Editing , Video

Production, and Web Game Development.

48 . All of the above areas of study and courses can be

directly associated with one or more of the Ðactivities or

services described in s. 212.031(1)(a)9.Ñ The evidence further

shows that from July 2010 to Ap ril 2013, between 60 to 95 percent

of the students enrolled at Petitioner International Academy of

Design (Orlando) received instruction in one or more of the above

courses. Over that same time period, Petitioner International

Academy of Merchandising and Design (Tampa) taught approximately

60 to 90 percent of the students enrolled in its facility in one

or more of these degrees or courses.

49 . Therefore, Petitioners met their burden of proving

that they were Ðprimarily engaged in teaching students to pe rform

any of the activities or services described in section

212.031(1)(a)9.Ñ Accordingly, Petitioners are exempt under

section 212.0602 from paying taxes on the lease of real property

from July 1, 2010, through April 30, 2013.

50 . The Department argues that Petitioners are not entitled

to the tax exemption under section 212.0602 because they did not

teach students to perform Ðqualified production services.Ñ In

other words, t he Department interprets the phrase Ðactivities or

services described in s. 212. 031(1)(a)9 . Ñ as stated in section

212.0602 to include only job training that is taught Ðdirectly in

connection with the production o f a qualified motion picture.Ñ

51 . The Legislature did indeed restrict the tax exemption

in section 212.031(1)(a)9 . to only Ðactivities or services

performed directly in connection with the production of a

qualified motion picture.Ñ However, in interpreting the phrase

Ðactivities or servicesÑ in section 212.0602, the Department is

not permitted to expand on the words the Legi slature specifically

used in that statute. Ð[C]ourts are not at liberty to add words

to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature.Ñ

Caceres v. SedanoÓ s Supermarkets , 138 So. 3d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2014); see also L.G. v. State , 939 So. 2d 1141, 1143 ( Fla.

1st DCA 2006) (ÐWhere the L egislature has used a term in one part

of the statute and excluded it in another, it is improper to

imply the term in a provision where it has been otherwise

excluded.Ñ)

52 . If the Legislature intended to tie the tax exemption in

section 212.0602 to the actual production of a motion picture,

the drafters would have said so. They did not. Section 212.0602

does not restrict the Ðactivities or servicesÑ included in that

section only to those actually Ðperformed directly in connection

with the production of a qualified motion picture.Ñ Neither does

section 212.0602 state that its exemption is limited to

activities or services Ðas defined inÑ section 212.031(1)(a)9 . or

Ðdefined as Òqualified production services.Ó Ñ Furthermore,

section 212.0602 does not require students to have actually found

jobs in the motion picture industry in order for the school to

receive the exemption. Instead, the Legislature specifically

used the broad phrase Ðany of the activities or s ervices

described in s. 212.031(1)(a)9.Ñ (emphasis added). 10/

53 . The Department argues that PetitionersÓ curricula from

2010 through 2013 was not focused primarily on Ðqualified

production services.Ñ The evidence does show that Petitioners

offered cour sework that exposed their students to more expansive

career opportunities than just the movie business. However, this

fact should not disqualify Petitioners from receiving the section

212.0602 tax exemption. The expressed intent of section 212.0602

is to Ðfacilitate investment in education and job trainingÑ that

could be used to perform Ðany of the activities or servicesÑ the

Legislature listed in section 212.031(1)(a)9. The evidence in

the record establishes that the Ðjob trainingÑ Petitioners taught

to the majority of their students was applicable and usable to

perform the activities and services described in 212.031(1)(a)9.

54 . Consequently, the DepartmentÓs application of the

narrow definition of Ðactivities or servicesÑ from section

212.031(1)(a)9 . is contrary to the clear and unambiguous meaning

of the language the Legislature expressly used in section

212.0602. The tax exemption set forth in section 212.0602 must

not be restricted only to entities that teach activities or

services Ðperformed direc tly in connection with the production of

a qualified motion picture.Ñ If Petitioners were Ðprimarily

engagedÑ in teaching any of the activities itemized in section

212.031(1)(a)9 . , then the Legislature intended for them to

receive the section 212.0602 tax exemption. 11/

55 . Notwithstanding the plain and ordinary meaning of

section 212.0602, the undersigned recognizes that Florida courts

defer to agency interpretation of their own statutes. However,

because the language in section 212.0602 is unambiguous and

conveys a clear and definite meaning, the court must apply that

meaning even if it conflicts with the interpretation of the

administrative agency charged with enforcing it. See Muratti -

Stuart v. DepÓt of Bus. & ProfÓ l Reg., Constr. Indus. Licensing

Bd . , 174 So. 3d 538, 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2 015) (ÐAn agencyÓ s

interpretation of a statute is entitled to gr eat deference unless

the agencyÓ s interpretation conflicts with the plain and ordinary

meaning of the statute.Ñ); and Verizon Bus. Purchasing , 164 So.

3d a t 812 (ÐJudicial deference does not requ ire that courts adopt

an agencyÓ s interpretati on of a statute when the agencyÓ s

interpretation cannot be reconciled with the plain language of

the statute.Ñ)

56 . The undersigned concludes that section 212.0602 means

what its text most clearly conveys, that the Ðactivities or

servicesÑ that qualify a college for a tax exemption are those

Ðdescribed inÑ (not Ðdefined inÑ) section 212.031(1)(a). Those

Ðactivities or servicesÑ referenced in section 212.0602 are not

limi ted to only those that are performed directly in connection

with the actual production of a motion picture.

57 . Regarding Petitioners Ó request s for tax exemption s under

section 212.08(7)(o), notwithstanding the above conclusion,

PetitionersÓ argument that they were Ðstate tax - supported schoolsÑ

is not persuasive. Section 212.08 states, in pertinent part:

Sales, rental, use, consumption,

distribution, and sto rage tax; specified

exemptions. Ï The sale at retail, the rental,

the use, the consumption, the distr ibution,

and the storage to be used or consumed in

this state of the following are hereby

specifically exempt from the tax imposed by

this chapter.

* * *

(7) MISCELLANEOUS EXEMPTIONS. Ï Exemptions

provided to any entity by this chapter do not

inu re to any transaction that is otherwise

taxable under this chapter when payment is

made by a representative or employee of the

entity . . . . In addition, exemptions

provided to any entity by this subsection do

not inure to any transaction that is

otherwi se taxable under this chapter unless

the entity has obtained a sales tax exemption

certificate from the department or the entity

obtains or provides other documentation as

required by the department. Eligible

purchases or leases made with such a

certifica te must be in strict compliance with

this subsection and departmental rules, and

any person who makes an exempt purchase with

a certificate that is not in strict

compliance with this subsection and the rules

is liable for and shall pay the tax. The

depart ment may adopt rules to administer this

subsection.

* * *

(o) Schools, colleges, and universities.

Ï Also exempt from the tax imposed by this

chapter are sales or leases to state tax -

supported schools, colleges, or universities.

58 . Petitioners assert that they were Ðstate tax - supported

schoolsÑ because they received funds from Bright Futures and the

Workforce Investment Act . However, Petitioners did not

sufficiently prove that their institutions are ÐsupportedÑ by the

state tax funds that were awarded to their students through these

two scholarship programs. Neither did Petitioners establish that

the operation of their private colleges was based on the financial

assistance they received from the state of Florida. No evidence

was presented tha t the Florida Legislature appropriated state tax

funds to support PetitionersÓ private institutions. 12/

59 . Instead, the evidence shows that the scholarships were

awarded for the use of PetitionersÓ students. In other words, the

funds Petitioners receiv ed from Bright Futures did not ÐsupportÑ

Petitioners. The money channeled to Petitioners through Bright

Futures scholarships ÐsupportedÑ the students who w ere enrolled

with Petitioners.

60 . Further, section 212.08(7) specifically states that,

Ð exemptions provided to any entity by this subsection do not inure

to any transaction that is otherwise taxable . . . unless the

entity has obtained a sales tax exemption certificate from the

department or the entity obtains or provides other documentation

as require d by the department.Ñ Petitioners did not present any

evidence that they have obtained the requisite certificate (or

other documentation) from the Department to qualify for an

e xemption under section 212.08.

61 . In sum, based on the competent substantial evidence in

the record, Petitioners demonstrated that they taught their

students to perform Ðactivities or services described in

s. 212.031(1)(a)9.Ñ Therefore, Petitioners met their burden of

proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they qualif ied

for the tax exemption authorized under section 212.0602.

Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to refunds from the

Department for the sales tax they paid on their leases of real

property durin g the period of July 1, 2010, through April 30,

2013.

RECOMM ENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a

final order refunding Petitioner International School of Design

(Orlando) $159,785.20 and refunding Petitioner International

S chool of Merchandising and Design (Tampa) $754,311.93 .

DONE AND ENTERED this 29 th day of September , 2017, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. BRUCE CULPEPPER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hea rings

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 2 9 th day of September , 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1 / The undersigned applie s the 2013 Florida Statutes (the

statutes in effect during the last tax year of PetitionersÓ

refund request) to this matter unless otherwise stated. The

undersigned notes that section 212.0602 has not been amended

since 2010. Sec tion 212.031 remained unchanged from 2010 through

2017. ( The 2 017 amendment did not affect section

212.031(1)(a)9. ) Section 212.08 has been amended every year

since 2010. However, the language in section 212.08(7)(o) has

not changed.

2/ Petitioners ar e separate legal entities. Both Petitioners are

wholly - owned and operated by Career Education Corporation , which

is the parent company of both institutions. Career Education

Corporation submitted the tax refund requests on behalf of both

Petitioners.

3/ Because they involve identical issues of law and fact, DOAH

Case Nos. 17 - 1562 and 17 - 1563 were consolidated pursuant to an

Order entered sua sponte on March 22, 2017.

4/ See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28 - 106.216.

5/ Petitioner International Academy of Desig n (Orlando) is an

inactive, for - profit Florida corporation. Petitioner

International Academy of Merchandising and Design (Tampa) is an

active F lorida for - profit corporation.

6/ The Lessors of the property Petitioners leased provided an

Assignment of Rig hts to Petitioners for the full amount of sales

tax in the refund claim.

7/ In March 2014, Petitioner International Academy of

Merchandising and Design changed its name to Sanford - Brown

College - Tampa.

8/ Mr. WhittierÓs testimony is directly supported by the

testimony of Heather Miller, a Revenue Program Administrator for

the Department. In 2006, Ms. Miller reviewed this same issue

regarding PetitionersÓ eligibility for a sales tax exemption under

section 212.0602. Ms. Miller prepared a Technical Ass istance

Advisement in which she pronounced that:

[Q]ualified production services are activities

or services performed directly in connection

with the production of a qualified motion

picture. While the programs and curriculum

that [Petitioners] mention m ay be useful to

someone wishing to seek employment in motion

picture production, they are not focused

specifically on teaching students to perform

the activities or services directly in

connection with the production of motion

pictures. Instead, [Petition ers offer]

multiple degree programs with a broad

curriculum that would be advantageous to

students wishing to perform work in a number

of different posit ions for different

industries.

Therefore, Ms. Miller opined that Petitioners were not primarily

engage d in teaching students to perform activities or services

directly connected to motion picture production.

9/ The term Ðqualified motion pictureÑ is defined in section

212.06(1)(b) to mean, Ðall or any part of a series of related

images, either on film, t ape, or other embodiment, including, but

not limited to, all items comprising part of the original work

and film - related products derived therefrom as well as duplicates

and prints thereof and all sound recordings created to accompany

a motion picture, whi ch is produced, adapted, or altered for

exploitation in, on, or through any medium or device and at any

location, primarily for entertainment, commercial, industrial, or

educational purposes.Ñ

10/ Legislative intent is t he polestar that guides a courtÓ s

statutory construction analysis. ÐTo discern legislative intent,

a court must look first and foremost at the actual language used

in the statute.Ñ Larimore v. State , 2 So. 3d 101, 106 (Fla.

2008). Ð The Legislature must be understood to mean what it has

plainly expressed and this excludes construction . The

Legislative intent being plainly expressed, so that the act read

by itself or in connection with other statutes pertaining to the

same subject is clear, certain and unambiguous, the courts have

only th e simple and obvious duty to enforce the law according to

its terms .Ñ DMB Inv. v. Islamorada , 42 Fla. L. Weekly 1615

(Dist. Ct. App. 2017)(quoting Van Pelt v. Hilliard , 78 So. 693,

694 - 95 (Fla. 1918).

11/ The undersignedÓs conclusion is supported by the fact that

the Legislature created two separa te and distinct tax exemptions

i n sections 212.0602 and 212.031. The expressed legislative

intent behind section 212.0602 is to provide a tax exemption for

educational institutions to encourage training for certain jobs

and skills. Section 212.031, on the other hand, authorizes a tax

exemption for landowners who rent or lease their real property

for use in a Ðqualified production service . Ñ The two statutes

address the same industry (the motion picture busi ness), but the

tax exemptions do not relate to the same activity. This broad

interpretation give s Ðfull effectÑ to section 212.0602, as well

as section 212.031(1)(a)9 . and is not inconsistent. See

Larimore , 2 S o . 3d at 106.

12/ This conclusion is suppo rted by a document Petitioners

presented at the final hearing entitled Funding for Florida

School Districts Statistical Report for 2014 - 15. The first page

of the document states that the report Ðis a description of the

state program for financing public s chools in Florida.Ñ (emphasis

added). Both Petitioners we re incorporated as private, for -

profit educational institutions.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Joseph C. Moffa, Esquire

Moffa, Sutton, and Donnini, P.A.

One Financial Plaza, Suite 2202

100 Southeast Third Av enue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

(eServed)

Gerald J. Donnini, II, Esquire

Moffa, Sutton, and Donnini, P.A.

One Financial Plaza, Suite 2202

100 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

(eServed)

Jonathan W. Taylor, Esquire

Moffa, Sutton, and Donnini, P.A.

One Financial Plaza, Suite 2202

100 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

(eServed)

James H. Sutton, Esquire

Moffa, Sutton, and Donnini, P.A.

One Financial Plaza, Suite 2202

100 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Fl orida 33394

James F. McAuley, Esquire

Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, P.A.

One Financial Plaza, Suite 2202

100 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

(eServed)

Ginette Alexandria Harrell, Esquire

Office of Attorney General

The Capitol , Plaza L evel 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Stephen Masterson, Esquire

Office of Attorney General

The Capitol , Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Mark S. Hamilton, General Counsel

Department of Revenue

Post Office Box 6668

Tallahassee , Florida 32314 - 6 668

(eServed)

Leon M . Biegalski, Executive Director

Department of Revenue

Post Office Box 6668

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6668

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.