18-004992RU
Gbr Enterprises, Inc. vs.
Department Of Revenue
Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Monday, January 14, 2019.
DOAH Final Order on Monday, January 14, 2019.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8GBR ENTERPRISES, INC.,
11Petitioner,
12vs. Case Nos. 18 - 4475RX
1818 - 4992RU
21DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
24Respondent.
25_______________________________/
26FINAL ORDER
28This matter came b efore Administrative Law Judge Darren A.
38Schwartz of the Division of Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " ) for
49final hearin g on October 26, 2018, by video teleconference with
60sites in Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, Florida.
67APPEARANCES
68For Petitioner: Josep h C. Moffa, Esquire
75Jonathan W. Taylor, Esquire
79Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A.
84Trade Center South, Suite 930
89100 West Cypress Creek Road
94Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
98Rex D. Ware, Esquire
102Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, P.A.
1073500 Financial Plaza, Suite 330
112Tallahassee, Florida 32312
115For Respondent: Randi Ellen Dincher, Esquire
121Timothy Dennis , Esquire
124Office of the Attorney General
129Revenue Litigation Bureau
132The Capitol, Plaza Level - 01
138Tallahassee, Florida 32399
141STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S
146As to DOAH Case No. 18 - 4475RX, whet her Florida
157Administrative Code Rule 12A - 1.044(5)(a) is an invalid exercise
167of delegated legislative authority in violation of section
175120.52(8), Florida Statutes. 1/
179As to DOAH Case No. 18 - 4992RU, whether the Department of
191Revenue ' s ( " Department " ) Sta ndard Audit Plan, V ending and
204Amusement Machines -- Industry Specific, section 1.1.3.3 ( " SAP " ) is
215an un adopted rule in violation of sections 120.54 and 120.56,
226Florida Statutes.
228PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
230On October 16, 2016, GBR Enterprises , Inc. ("GBR") , file d a
243petition challenging the Department ' s Notice of Decision ( " NOD " )
255issued August 22, 2016, which assessed sales tax and interest
265against GBR in the amount of $298,977.10. On October 28, 2016,
277the Department referred the matter to DOAH to assign an
287admin istrative law judge to conduct the final hearing. The case
298was assigned to Judge Robert S. Cohen under DOAH Case No. 16 -
3116331.
312On November 3, 2016, the Department filed an Unopposed
321Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction Without Prejudice to Reopen at
330a Later Date because the parties desired to explore the
340possibility of settlement. On that same date, Judge Cohen
349entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction.
357On January 27, 2017, GBR filed its Amended Petition for
367C hapter 120 Hearing challengin g the NOD. On May 30, 2018, the
380Department filed its unopposed Motion to Reopen Case. The matter
390was reopened under DOAH Case No. 18 - 2772 and reassigned to Judge
403Cohen.
404On June 1, 2018, Judge Cohen entered an Order setting the
415final hearing for August 9, 2018. On July 10, 2018, the parties
427filed a joint motion to continue the final hearing. On July 16,
4392018, Judge Cohen entered an Order granting the motion and
449reset ting the final hearing for September 18, 2018.
458On August 23, 2018, GBR filed a Petiti on to Determine the
470Invalidity of Existing Rule 12A - 1.044. The petition was assigned
481to Judge Cohen under DOAH Case No. 18 - 4475RX. That same date,
494GBR filed an unopposed motion for continuance based on its filing
505of the rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 18 - 4475RX and its intent
519to file another petition at DOAH challenging an agency statement
529as an unadopted rule. On August 24, 2018, Judge Cohen entered an
541Order granting the motion and reset ting the final hearing for
552October 26, 2018. On August 27, 2018, J udge Cohen entered an
564Order consolidating DOAH Case Nos. 18 - 2772 and 18 - 4475RX.
576On September 17, 2018, GBR filed its Petition to Determine
586the Invalidity of Agency Statement. The petition was assigned to
596Judge Cathy M. Sellers under DOAH Case No. 18 - 499 2RU. On
609September 21, 2018, the case was transferred to Judge Cohen. On
620this same date, Judge Cohen entered an Order consolidating DOAH
630Case Nos. 18 - 2772, 18 - 4475RX, and 18 - 4992RU, and the three cases
646were transferred to the undersigned for all further pr oceedings.
656On October 8, 2018, the Department ' s Corrected Motion for
667Attorney ' s Fees Pursuant to Section 57.105 and 120.595 was filed,
679to which GBR responded on October 15, 2018. On October 25, 2018,
691GBR filed a request for official recognition.
698The final hearing was held i n all three cases on October 26,
7112018, with both parties present. At the hearing, the undersigned
721granted GBR ' s request for official recognition as to Florida
732Administrative Code R ules 6A - 1.012, 12A - 1.044, and 1 - 1.010.
746However , the undersigned denied GBR ' s request for official
756recognition as to various purported school board policies. The
765undersigned also granted the Department's unopposed request for
773official recognition of rule 12A - 1.44 (later transferred to rule
78412A - 1.044) in effect October 7, 1968, through October 31, 2005.
796The Department presented the testimony of Amit Biegun, Mary
805Gray, Carrie Bowyer, and Mark Zych. The Department ' s Exhibits 1
817through 25 were received in evidence based on the stipulation of
828the parties. GBR did not present the testimony of any additional
839live witnesses. However, the deposition transcripts of Mary Gray
848and Mark Zych (GBR ' s Exhibits 22 and 23) were received in
861evidence. 2/ GBR ' s Exhibits 1 throu gh 7, 9, 10, 12, and 19
876through 21 were also received in evidence based on the
886stipulation of the parties. At the hearing, the parties waived
896the requirement under section 120.56(1)(d) for the undersigned to
905render this Final Order within 30 days of the hearing.
915The one - volume final hearing Tran script was filed at DOAH on
928November 13, 2018. The parties timely filed proposed final
937orders, which were given consideration in the preparation of this
947Final Order. 3/
950FINDING S OF FACT
954The Parties and Audit Period
9591. GBR is a Florida corporation with its principal place of
970business in Miami, Florida. Gilda Rosenberg is the owner of GBR
981and a related entity, Gilly Vending, Inc. ( " Gilly " ). GBR and
993Gilly are in the vending machine business. At all times material
1004hereto, Amit Biegun served as the chief fin ancial officer of the
1016two entities.
10182. The Department is the state agency responsible for
1027administering Florida ' s sales tax laws pursuant to c hapter 212,
1039Florida Statutes.
10413. This case concerns the audit period of January 1, 2012 ,
1052to December 31, 2 014.
1057GBR ' s Provision of Vending Machine Services
10654. Prior to the audit period, the school boards of Broward
1076and Palm Beach County issued written solicitations through
1084invitations to bid ( " ITB " ), seeking vendors to furnish, install,
1095stock, and maintain ve nding machines on school property.
11045. The bids required a " full turn - key operation. " The
1115stated objectives were to obtain the best vending service and
1125percentage commission rates that will be most advantage ous to the
1136school boards, and to provide a contract that will be most
1147profitable to the awarded vendor. The stated goal was that
1157student choices from beverage and snack vending machines closely
1166align with federal dietary guidelines.
11716. GBR operates approximately 700 snack and beverage
1179v ending machines situated at 65 schools in Broward, P alm Beach,
1191and Miami - Dade Counties . Of these 65 schools, 43 are in Broward
1205County, 21 are in Palm Beach County, and one is in Miami - Dade
1219County .
12217. The snack vending machines are all owned by GBR.
1231Beverage vending machines are owned by bottling companies, such
1240as Coca - Cola and Pepsi. Of the 700 vendin g machines,
1252approximately 60 percent of the machines are for beverages and
1262the remaining 40 percent are for snacks.
12698. GBR has written ve nding agreements with some schools.
1279In these agreements, GBR is designated as a licensee, the school
1290is designated as the licensor, and GBR is granted a license to
1302install vending machines on school property in exchange for a
1312commission. Furthermore, GBR is solely responsible to pay all
1321federal, state, and local taxes in connection with the operation
1331of the vending machines.
13359. Ownership of the vending machines does not transfer to
1345the schools. However, in some cases the schools have keys to the
1357machines. In addition, designated school board employees have
1365access to the inside of the machines in order to review the
1377meter, monitor all transactions, and reconcile the revenue from
1386the machines.
138810. GBR places the vending machines on school p roperty.
139811. However, the schools control the locations of the
1407vending machines.
140912. The schools also require timers on the machines so that
1420the schools can control the times during the day when the
1431machines are operational and accessible to students .
143913. The schools also control the types of products to be
1450placed in the machines to ensure that the products closely align
1461with the federal dietary guidelines.
146614. The schools also control pricing strategies.
147315. GBR stocks, maintains, and serv ices the vending
1482machines. However, Coca - Cola and Pepsi may repair the beverage
1493machines they own. GBR is solely responsible for repairing the
1503machines it owns.
150616. The schools require that any vendor service workers
1515seeking access to the vending mach ines during school hours pass
1526background checks.
152817. GBR route drivers collect the revenue from all of the
1539vending machines and the revenues are deposited into GBR ' s bank
1551accounts.
155218. In exchange for GBR ' s services, the schools receive
1563from GBR, as a commission, a percentage of the gross receipts.
1574However, neither GBR nor the schools are guaranteed any revenue
1584unless sales occur from the machines.
159019. On its federal income tax returns, GBR reports all
1600sales revenue from the vending machines.
160620. For the tax year 2012, GBR ' s federal income tax return
1619reflects gross receipts or sales of $5,952,270. Of this amount,
1631GBR paid the schools $1,363,207, a percentage of the gross
1643receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its
1653general ledg er as a commission and equipment space fee and cost
1665of goods sold.
166821. For the tax year 2013, GBR ' s federal income tax return
1681reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,535,362. Of this amount,
1693GBR paid directly to the schools $1,122,211, a percentage of the
1706gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its
1717general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost
1728of goods sold.
173122. For the tax year 2014, GBR ' s federal income tax return
1744reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,076, 255. Of this amount,
1756GBR paid directly to the schools $1,279,682, a percentage of the
1769gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its
1780general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost
1791of goods sold.
179423. Thus, for the au dit period, and according to the
1805federal tax returns and general ledgers , GBR ' s gross receipts or
1817sales were $18,563,887. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the
1830schools $3,765,100, as a commission and equipment space fee and
1842cost of goods sold.
1846The De partment ' s Audit and Assessment
185424. On January 27, 201 5, the Department, through its tax
1865a uditor , Mary Gray, sent written notice to GBR of its intent to
1878conduct the audit. This was Ms. Gray ' s first audit involving
1890vending machines at schools.
189425. There after, GBR provided Ms. Gray with its general
1904ledger, federal returns, and bid documents.
191026. On October 28, 2015, Ms. Gray issued a draft assessment
1921to GBR. The email transmittal by Ms. Gray to GBR ' s
1933representative states that " [t]he case is being forwa rded for
1943supervisory review. " In the draft, Ms. Gray determined that GBR
1953owed additional tax in the amount of $28,589.65, but there was no
1966mention of any purported tax on the monies paid by GBR to the
1979schools as a license fee to use real property.
198827. H owever, very close to the end of the audit, within one
2001week after issuing the draft, and after Ms. Gray did further
2012research and conferred with her supervisor, Ms. Gray ' s supervisor
2023advised her to issue the B03 assessment pursuant to section
2033212.031 and ru le 12A - 1.044, and tax the monies paid by GBR to the
2049schools as a license fee to use real property.
205828. Thus, according to the Department, GBR was now
2067responsible for tax in the amount of $246,230.93, plus applicable
2078interest. Of this alleged amount, $1,2 18.48 was for addition al
2090sales tax (A01); $4,181.41 was for purchase expenses (B02);
2100$13 ,790 was for untaxed rent (B02); and $227.041.04 was for the
2112purported license to use real property (B03).
211929. Ms. Gray then prepared a Standard Audit Report
2128detail ing her position of the audit and forwarded the report to
2140the Department ' s dispute resolution division.
214730. On January 19, 2016, the Department issued the Notice
2157of Proposed Assessment ( " NOPA " ) against GBR for additional tax
2168and interest due of $288,993 .31. The Department does not seek a
2181penalty against GBR.
218431. At hearing, Ms. Gray testified that the Department ' s
2195SAP is an audit planning tool or check list which she used in
2208conducting GBR ' s audit.
221332. Employees of the Department are not bound to follow the
2224SAP , and the SAP can be modified by the auditors on a word
2237document.
223833. The SAP was utilized by Ms. Gray during the audit, but
2250it was not relied on in the NOD. 4/
2259CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22623 4 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and
2273p arties pursuant to sections 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, and
2282120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
2285Case No. 18 - 4475 RX -- Challenge to Existing Rule 12A -
22981.044 (5)(a)
230035. Rule 12A - 1.044(5)(a) provides in pertinent part as
2310follows:
2311(5) Lease or license to use real property;
2319direct pay authority.
2322(a) If the machine owner is also the
2330operator and the operator places the machine
2337at another person ' s location, the arrangement
2345between the machine operator and location
2351owner is a lease or license to use real
2360property. The location owner shall collect
2366the tax from the machine operator on the
2374amount the location owner receives for the
2381lease or license to use the real property.
2389The tax must be separately stated from the
2397amount of the lease or license payment. [ 5/ ]
240736. Und er section 120.56(1)(a), " [a]ny person substantially
2415affected by a rule . . . may seek an administrative determination
2427of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an
2441invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. " An
2448existing rule m ay be challenged at any time during its ex istence.
2461§ 120.56(3)(a), Fla. Stat. "The administrative law judge may
2470declare all or part of a rule invalid." § 120.56(3)(b), Fla.
2481Stat.
248237. A party is substantially affected if the rule will
2492result in real or immediate injury in fact and the alleged
2503interest is within the zone of interest to be protected or
2514regulated. Jacoby v. Fla. B d . of Med . , 917 So. 2d 358, 360 (Fla.
25301st DCA 2005). GBR is substantially affected by the rule and has
2542standing to challenge th e rule. GBR is a substantially affected
2553party because the Department relied on the rule in determining
2563the B03 assessment against GBR , and GBR is within the zone of
2575interests to be protected. In its proposed final o rder, the
2586Department concedes that GBR has standing to challenge the rule.
259638. GBR has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
2608evidence that the existing rule is an invalid exercise of
2618delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised.
2626§ 120.56(3)(a) , Fla. Stat .
26313 9. The definition of " invalid exercise of delegated
2640legislative authority" is set forth in section 120.52(8), which
2649provides in pertinent part:
2653(8) " Invalid exercise of delegated
2658legislative authority " means action that goes
2664beyond the powers, functions , and duties
2670delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or
2677existing rule is an invalid exercise of
2684delegated legislative authority if any one of
2691the following applies:
2694* * *
2697(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of
2705rulemaking authority, citation to which is
2711required by s. 120.54 (3)(a)1.;
2716(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or
2722contravenes the specific provisions of law
2728implemented, citation to which is required by
2735s. 120.54(3) (a)1 .;
2739* * *
2742A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary
2749but not sufficient to allow an agency to
2757adopt a rule; a specific law to be
2765implemented is also required. An agency may
2772adopt only rules that implement or interpret
2779the specific powers and dut ies granted by the
2788enabling statute. No agency shall have
2794authority to adopt a rule only because it is
2803reasonably related to the purpose of the
2810enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and
2817capricious or is within the agency ' s class of
2827powers and duties, nor shall an agency have
2835the authority to implement statutory
2840provisions setting forth general legislative
2845intent or policy. Statutory language
2850granting rulemaking authority or generally
2855describing the powers and functions of an
2862agency shall be construed to extend no
2869further than implementing or interpreting the
2875specific powers and duties conferred by the
2882enabling statute.
288440. GBR contends that existing rule 12A - 1.044(5)(a) is an
2895invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under section
2903120.52(8 )(b) because the Department exceeded its grant of
2912rulemaking authority.
291441. In United Faculty of Florida v. State Board of
2924Educ ation , 157 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), Judge Wetherell
2936recently stated:
2938A rule is invalid under section 120.52(8)(b)
2945if the agency " exceed[s] its grant of
2952rulemaking authority. " A grant of rulemaking
2958authority is the " statutory language that
2964explicitly authorizes or requires an agency
2970to adopt [a rule]. " § 120.52(17), Fla. Stat.
2978The scope of an agency ' s rulemaking authority
2987is constrained b y section 120.536(1) and the
2995so - called " flush - left paragraph " in section
3004120.52(8), which provide that an agency may
3011only adopt rules to " implement or interpret
3018the specific powers and duties granted by the
3026[agency ' s] enabling statute " ; th at an agency
3035may not adopt rules to " implement statutory
3042provisions setting forth general legislative
3047intent or policy " or simply because the rule
" 3055is reasonably related to the purpose of the
3063enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and
3070capricious or is w ithin the agency ' s class of
3081powers and duties " ; and that " [s]tatutory
3087language granting rulemaking authority or
3092generally describing the powers and functions
3098of an agency shall be construed to extend no
3107further than implementing or interpreting the
3113specifi c powers and duties conferred by the
3121enabling statute. "
3123Section 120.536(1) and the flush - left
3130paragraph in section 120.52(8) require a
3136close examination of the statutes cited by
3143the agency as authority for the rule at issue
3152to determine whether those stat utes
3158explicitly grant the agency authority to
3164adopt the rule. As this court famously
3171stated in Save the Manatee Club , the question
3179is " whether the statute contains a specific
3186grant of legislative authority for the rule,
3193not whether the grant of authority is
3200specific enough. Either the enabling statute
3206authorizes the rule at issue or it does not. "
3215Id. at 516 - 517.
322042. The issue of whether a rule is an invalid exercise of
3232delegated legislative authority under section 120.52(8)(b) and
3239the " flush - left " p rovision must be determined on a case - by - case
3255basis. Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Save the Manatee Club,
3266Inc. , 773 So. 2d 594, 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
327643 . In the instant case, the statutes cited as the
3287rulemaking authority for the rule are sections 21 2.0515,
3296212.17(6), 212.18(2), and 213.06(1) , Florida Statutes .
330344. Section 212.0515 deals with " [s] ales from vending
3312machines; sales to vending machine operators; special provisions;
3320registration; [and] penalties. " The statute provides definitions
3327of the phrase " vending machine " and " operator " relating solely to
3337the imposition of a sales tax on the gross proceeds from the
3349sales of items of tangible personal property contained within the
3359machines. The statute deals with tax on sales of items from the
3371vend ing machines, registration of the machines , and other
3380miscellaneous provisions (an exemption for churches, synagogues,
3387nonprofit or charitable organizations, and penalt ies). The
3395statute authorizes the Department to " adopt rules necessary to
3404administer thi s section. "
340845. Section 212.17 deals with " [t] ax credits or refunds. "
3418Subsection (6)(a) requires the Department to design, prepare,
3426print, and furnish to all dealers, except dealers filing through
3436electronic data interchange, or make available or presc ribe to
3446the dealers, all necessary forms for filing returns and
3455instructions to ensure full collection from dealers and an
3464accounting for the taxes due. Subsection (6)(b) prescribes the
3473format and instructions necessary for filing returns in a manner
3483that is initiated through an electronic data interchange to
3492ensure a full collection from dealers and an accounting for the
3503taxes due. Section 212.17(8) authorizes the Department to " adopt
3512rules necessary to administer and enforce this section. "
352046. Section 212.18(2) requires the Department to
" 3527administer and enforce the assessment and collection of the
3536taxes, interest, and penalties " imposed by c hapter 212, and
3546authorizes the Department to " adopt rules pursuant to
3554ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to enforce the pro visions of [Chapter
3565212] in order that there not be collected on the average more
3577than the rate levied herein. The department is authorized to and
3588it shall provide by rule a method for accomplishing this end. "
359947. Section 213.06(1) authorizes the Departm ent to adopt
3608rules pursuant to sections 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement
3617Florida ' s revenue laws.
362248. Sections 212.0515, 212.17, 212.18(2), and 213.06(1) do
3630not address any tax to be imposed on payments between the owner
3642and operator of a vending machine and the owner of property where
3654the vending machine may be placed. The statutes do not address
3665any tax to be imposed on payment s for a lease o r license to use
3681real property.
368349. Contrary to the Department ' s contention, statutes
3692providing onl y general rulemaking authority do not confer the
3702necessary specific authority required for a rule to be valid.
3712Board of Tr s . of the In t . Imp . Tr ust Fund v. Day Cruise Ass ' n,
3733Inc. , 794 So. 2d 696, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Fla. Dep ' t of
3748High. Saf. & Motor V eh . v. JM Auto, Inc. , 977 So. 3d 733, 734
3764(Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
376850. In sum, sections 212.0515, 212.17, 212.18(2), and
3776213.06(1) do not confer the Department with specific authority to
3786enact the i nstant rule dealing with taxing payment s between the
3798owner and operator of a vending machine and the owner of the
3810property where the vending machine may be placed as a license to
3822use real property.
382551 . Accordingly, the Department exceeded its rulemaking
3833authority , and the rule is an invalid exercise of delegate d
3844legislative authority.
384652. In its proposed final o rder, th e Department relies on a
38591992 Final O rder in Family Arcade Alliance v. D ep artment of
3872Revenue , Case No. 91 - 5338RP, 1992 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 6111
3885(Fla. DOAH Mar. 17, 1992 ). In Family Arca de Alliance , a group
3898composed primarily of businesses that operate amusement game
3906machines challenged several proposed rules of the Department. In
3915paragraph 59 of the Final Order, Hearing Officer William R.
3925Dorsey, Jr. , addressed the group ' s contention th at proposed rule
393712A - 1.004(10) (the predecessor to that portion of the rule
3948challenged in the instant case) " impermissibly enlarges or
3956modifies the statute implemented. " Id. at *44. In response,
3965Hearing Officer Dorsey stated the following:
3971Section 212. 05(1)(j)2.a, Florida Statutes
3976(1991), says a machine owner who is also an
3985operator cannot deduct from the sales tax due
3993any rent or license fee paid to the location
4002owner. The statutory language implicitly
4007treats the arrangement as a lease or license
4015to u se real property. The statutory language
4023is sufficient authority for the rule ' s
4031presumption, when coupled with the language
4037of Section 212.031, Florida Statutes (1991),
4043which imposes sales tax on the business of
4051leasing or granting a license to use real
4059p roperty. Both sections are cited in the
4067portion of the rule disclosing the statutes
4074the rule implements.
4077Id.
407853 . The Department ' s reliance on Family Arcade Alliance is
4090misplaced. Family Arcade Alliance did not address whether the
4099proposed rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative
4108authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(b) and the " flush -
4118left " provision. Rather, the issue in Family Arcade Alliance was
4128whether the " rule impermissibly enlarges or modifies the statute
4137implemented . " (emphasis added). A claim that a rule enlarges,
4147modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law
4155implemented is a separate claim under section 120.52(8)(c). 6/
416454 . Contrary to the Department ' s assertion, section 212.031
4175does not confer the Department with specific authority to enact
4185the rule dealing with taxing payments between the owner and
4195operator of a ve nding machine and the owner of the property where
4208the vending machine may be placed as a lease or license to use
4221real property. Sectio n 212.031 is not cited in the rule as
4233rulemaking authority. An agency cannot rely on statutory
4241provisions not cited in the rule as rulemaking authority. State
4251v. Peter R. Brown Constr., Inc. , 108 So. 3d 723, 726 - 727 (Fla.
42651st DCA 2013); Dep ' t of Child. & Fam. Servs. v . I.B. , 891 So. 2d
42821168, 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In any event, section 212.031
4293addresses taxation on a lease or license to use real property,
4304but it does not address the taxation of vending machine s.
4315Finally, section 212.031 does no t spec ific ally grant any
4326authority to enact rules.
433055 . GBR also contends that the rule is an invalid exercise
4342of delegated legislative authority in violation of section
4350120.52(8)(c) because the rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes
4358the specific provision s of law implemented . Under section
4368120.52(8)(c), the test is whether the rule gives effect to the
4379specific laws to be implemented and whether the rule implements
4389or interprets specific powers and duties. Day Cruise Ass'n ,
4398Inc. , 794 So. 2d at 704.
440456 . The statutes cited as the law implemented for the rule
4416are sections 212.02(10)(g), (14), (15), (16), (19), (24);
4424212.031; 212.05(1)(h); 212.0515; 212.054(1), (2) , and (3)(l . );
4433212.055; 212.07(1) and (2); 212.08(1), (7) and (8); 212.11(1);
4442212.12(2 ) , (3), (4) , and (9); 212.18(2) and (3).
445157 . The provisions in section 212.02 are definitions of
4461terms referenced in the rule.
446658 . The Department principally relies on section 212.031.
4475As discussed above, section 212.031 addresses taxation on a lea se
4486or license to use real property, but it does not address the
4498taxation of vending machines. Not only does the rule address
4508vending machines, but it goes even further dictating that a
4518vending machine owner , who is also the operator , is aut omatically
4529s ubj ect to a tax on payment s to the property owner as a lease or
4546license to use real property based solely on the owner/operator ' s
" 4558place[ment][of] the machine at another person ' s location. "
4567Accordingly, the rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes section
4575212 .031.
457759 . The Department concedes that section 212.05(1)(h) is a
4587law imposing tax on coin - operated amusement machines, and was
4598cited in error as the law implemented.
460560 . As discussed above, section 212.0515 does not address
4615any tax to be imposed on paym ents between the owner and operator
4628of a vending machine and the owner of property where the vending
4640machine may be placed, and it does not address any tax to be
4653imposed on a lease or license to use real property. Accordingly,
4664the rule enlarges, modifies , or contravenes section 212.0515 .
467361 . Sections 212.054 and 212.055 relate to discretionary
4682sales surtax. Section 212.07(1) and (2) relate to a privilege
4692tax on retail sales and resales. Section 212.08 relates to
4702exemptions. Section 212.11(1) relates to the method of
4710calculating an estimated tax liability. Section 212.12(2), (3),
4718(4), and (9) relates to penalties. Section 212.18(2) relates to
4728the Department ' s authority to administer and enforce the
4738assessment and collection of taxes and to adopt rule s " to enforce
4750the provisions of this chapter in order that there shall not be
4762collected on the average more than the rate levied. " Section
4772212.18(3) relates to registration certificates and penalties for
4780failure to apply and obtain certificates of registr ation. These
4790statutes do not address any tax to be imposed on payments between
4802the owner and operator of a vending machine and the owner of
4814property where the vending machine may be placed, and they do not
4826address any tax to be imposed on a lease or licen se to use real
4841property. Accordingly, the rule enlarges, modifies, or
4848contrave nes sections 212.054; 212.055; 212.07(1) and (2); 212.08;
4857212.11(1); 212.12(2), (3), (4) and (9); 212.18(2) and (3).
4866Case No. 18 - 4992RU -- Challenge to Section 1.1.3.3 of the
4878D epartment ' s SAP
488362 . Section 120.56(4)(a) authorizes any person who is
4892substantially affected by an agency statement to seek an
4901administrative determination that the statement is actually a
4909rule whose existence violates section 120.54(1)(a) because the
4917agency has not formally adopted the statement. GBR has standing
4927to seek an administrative determination that section 1.1.3.3 of
4936the SAP (the agency statement) is actually a ru le because
4947Ms. Gray considered the statement during the course of the audit.
495863 . Section 120.54(1)(a) declares that " [r]ulemaking is not
4967a matter of agency discretion " and directs that " [e]ach agency
4977statement defined as a rule by s. 120.52 shall be adopted by the
4990rulemaking procedure provided by this section as soon as fe asible
5001and practicable. "
500364 . Section 120.52(16) defines the term " rule, " in
5012pertinent part, as:
5015Each agency statement of general
5020applicability that implements, interprets, or
5025prescribes law or policy or describes the
5032procedure or practice requirem ents of an
5039agency and includes any form which imposes
5046any requirement or solicits any information
5052not specifically required by statute or by an
5060existing rule.
506265 . To be a rule, a statement of applicability must operate
5074in the manner of a law. Thu s, an agency statement is " generally
5087applicable " if it is intended by its own effect to create rights,
5099or to require compliance, or otherwise to have the direct and
5110consistent effect of law. Coventry First, LLC v. Off. of Ins.
5121Reg. , 38 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fl a. 1st DCA 2010); Jenkins v. State ,
5135855 So. 2d 1219, 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
514466 . Section 120.56(4)(c) authorizes an administrative law
5152judge ( " ALJ " ) to enter a final order determining that all or part
5166of a challenged statement violates section 120.54( 1)(a). The ALJ
5176is not authorized to decide, however, whether the statement is an
5187invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in
5196section 120.52(8). Thus, in a section 120.56(4) proceeding, it
5205is not necessary or even appropriate for the ALJ to decide
5216whether an unadopted rule exceeds the agency ' s grant of
5227rulemaking authority, for example, or whether it enlarges,
5235modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law
5243implemented, or is otherwise " substantively " an invalid exercise
5251of de legated legislative authority. Section 120.56(4) is
5259forward - looking in its approach. It is designed to prevent
5270future or recurring agency action based on an unadopted rule, not
5281to provide relief from the final agency action that has already
5292occurred.
52936 7 . In Dep artment of Rev enue v. Vanjaria Enter prise s ,
5307675 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), the Department attempted to
5319subject a taxpayer to sales tax based on calculations pursuant to
5330a procedure set forth in its sales and use tax training manual.
5342The cou rt held the Department ' s tax assessment procedure was a
" 5355rule " because it was a " statement of general applicability that
5365implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy. " Id . at 255.
5376Specifically, the court found that the Department ' s tax assessment
5387procedure created its entitlement to taxes while adversely
5395affecting property owners, with the training manual being the sole
5405guide for auditors in their assessment of multiple - use properties.
5416In determining exempt versus nonexempt uses of multiple - use
5426pr operties, the Department ' s auditors strictly complied with the
5437procedure set forth in the training manual for all audits
5447performed. Moreover, the Department ' s auditors were not afforded
5457any discretion to take action outside the scope of the training
5468manua l. Id .
547268 . However, in Coventry First, LLC , an insurance company
5482challenged the O ffice of I nsurance R egulation's policy and
5493procedures requiring production of records regarding out - of - state
5504transactions as an unpromulgated rule. The First District held
5513that the evidence presented at hearing supported the ALJ ' s
5524conclusion that the documents were internal management memoranda,
5532not statements of general applicability, because their use was
5541subject to the discretion of the examiners, and they did not
5552so licit or require any information not required by statute. Id.
5563at 204.
556569 . Moreover, in Dep artment of Highway Safety & Motor
5576Vehicles v. Schluter , 705 So. 2d 81, 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the
5589First District held that three policies of the agency were not
5600unpromulgated rules because the record established that they were
5609only to apply under " certain circumstances. " The court found
5618such statements to be merely guidelines in that their application
5628was subject to disc retion, and, therefore, the policy did not
5639have the direct and consistent effect of law. Id.
564870 . Finally, in Agency for Health Care Administration v.
5658Custom Mobility, Inc. , 995 So. 2d 984, 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008),
5670the First District held that a formula was not an unpromulgated
5681rule beca use it was subject to discretionary application in that
5692the agency could choose whethe r or not to use the methodology .
570571 . As detailed above, at hearing, Ms. Gray testified that
5716the Department ' s SAP is an audit planni ng tool or check list which
5731she used i n conducting GBR ' s audit. The SAP can be modified by
5746the auditors on a word document, employees are not bound to
5757follow the SAP, and t he SAP was not relied on by Ms. Gray or the
5773Department in the NOD.
577772 . Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that the
5785D epartment ' s SAP is not an un promulgated rule.
5796ORDER
5797Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
5807Law, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) a s to DOAH Case No. 18 -
58224475RX, Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A - 1.044(5)(a) is an
5832invalid exercis e of delegated legislative authority in violation
5841of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2018) 7/ ; (2) a s to DOAH
5853Case No. 18 - 4992RU, GBR ' s P etition is dismissed; and (3) t he
5869undersigned retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding
5876attorney ' s fees and costs.
5882DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of January , 2019 , in
5892Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
5896S
5897DARREN A. SCHWARTZ
5900Administrative Law Judge
5903Division of Administrative Hearings
5907The DeSoto Building
59101230 Apalachee Parkwa y
5914Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
5919(850) 488 - 9675
5923Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
5929www.doah.state.fl.us
5930Filed with the Clerk of the
5936Division of Administrative Hearings
5940this 14th day of January , 2019 .
5947ENDNOTE S
59491/ Unless otherwise indicated, citations to stat utes and
5958administrative rules are to the 2018 versions of the Florida
5968Statutes and Florida Administrative Code.
59732/ Ms . Gray and Mr. Zych were both party representatives of the
5986Department.
59873/ The NOD assessed sales tax against GBR in the amount of
5999$246, 230.93, plus interest , for a total assessment of
6008$298,977.10. Of this amount, $1,218.48 was for additional sales
6019(Exhibit A01); $4,181.41 was for purchase expenses (Exhibit B02);
6029$13,790.00 was for untaxed rent (Exhi bit B02); and $227,041.04
6041was for a lic ense to use real property (Exhibit B03). GBR paid
6054sales tax on the sale of the revenue items sold from the vending
6067machines, which was subject to sales tax on the products sold.
6078The only remaining issue in DOAH Case No. 18 - 2722 is whether GBR
6092is liable f or $227,041.04 as a tax on a lic ense to use real
6108property, plus applicable interest. On this issue, the
6116undersigned has recommended order authority, and the challenge in
6125that case is being addressed in a separate Recommended Order.
6135The challenges in DOAH Case Nos. 18 - 4475RX and 18 - 4992RU are
6149being addressed in the instant Final Order because the
6158undersigned has final order authority in DOAH Case Nos. 18 - 4475RX
6170and 18 - 4992RU.
61744/ Section 1.1.3.3 of the SAP provides as follows:
6183For vending machines only, if both the owner
6191of the machine and the location owner have
6199the keys to the money box and are responsible
6208for removing the receipts, then they shall
6215designate in writing who shall be considered
6222the operator. Absent such written
6227designation, the owner of the machine shall
6234be deemed to [b]e the operator (See Rule 12A -
62441.044, F.A.C.). Do not confuse with Section
6251212.05(h)2c., F.S., which provides otherwise.
6256For both amusement and vending machines, if
6263available, check written agreement for terms.
6269The agree ment should identify who is
6276responsible for remitting the tax on the
6283receipts, who is responsible for purchasing
6289the certificate (as operator of an amusement
6296machine or will provide a notice on the
6304vending machine, and whether the arrangement
6310if a lease o f tangible personal property (the
6319machines) or a lease of real property (See
6327TAA 96A - 006 and TUB 95(A)1 - 001).
63365/ Rule 12A - 1.044, titled Vending Machines, was first promulgated
6347by the Department in 1968. The rule has been amended many times
6359since 1968, w ith the most recent amendment enacted in January
63702018. In the most recent amendment in January 2018, subsection
6380(6)(a) was renumbered as (5)(a), but the substantive language
6389within the rule remained the same. Thus, the opera tive rule
6400provision in effect during the audit period, cited in the NOD and
6412relied on by the Department in making the B03 assessment , was
6423subsection (6)(a).
64256/ Notably, t he Legislature had not even enacted the " flush - left "
6438provision when the Final Order in Family Arcade Alliance wa s
6449issued. The flush - left provision, which was adopted in 1999,
6460represents the Legislature ' s intent to clarify significant
6469restrictions on agencies ' exercise of rulemaking authority.
6477B d . of Tr s . o f the Int . Imp ust Fund v. Day Cruise Ass ' n,
6498Inc. , 794 S o. 2d 696, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
65097/ This Final Order only addresses the validity of existing
6519rule 12A - 1.044(5)(a) , formerly (6)(a) because that is the only
6530rule provision cited in the NOD as legal authority for the B 03
6543assessment and the Department' s proposed agency action to impose
6553a sales tax on the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license
6568to use real property . Because the undersigned has determined
6578that section (5)(a) is invalid, and the NOD does not rely on any
6591other provisions of the rule as a basis for the Department ' s
6604proposed action, it is unnecessary for the undersigned to
6613specifically address the validity of any provisions in the rule
6623other than (5)(a) . However, to the extent the Department may
6634seek to justify the B03 assessment agai nst GBR based on any other
6647provision s with in the rule , such other provisions would also
6658constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority
6666for the same reasons discussed above.
6672COPIES FURNISHED:
6674Jonathan W. Taylor, Esquire
6678Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A.
6683Trade Center South, Suite 930
6688100 West Cypress Creek Road
6693Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
6697(eServed)
6698Randi Ellen Dincher, Esquire
6702Timothy Denni s, Esquire
6706Office of the Attorney General
6711Revenue Litigation Bureau
6714The Capitol , Plaza Level - 01
6720Ta llahassee, Florida 32399
6724(eServed)
6725Joseph C. Moffa, Esquire
6729Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A.
6734100 West Cypress Creek Road , Suite 930
6741Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
6745(eServed)
6746Rex D. Ware, Esquire
6750Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, P.A.
67553500 Financial Plaza , Suite 33 0
6761Tallahassee, Florida 32312
6764(eServed)
6765Mark S. Hamilton, General Counsel
6770Department of Revenue
6773Post Office Box 6668
6777Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6668
6782(eServed)
6783Leon M. Biegalski , Executive Director
6788Department of Revenue
6791Post Office Box 6668
6795Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6668
6800(eServed)
6801Ken Plante, Coordinator
6804Joint Admin istrative Proced ures Committee
6810Room 680, Pepper Building
6814111 West Madison Street
6818Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1400
6823(eServed)
6824Ernest Reddick, Program Administrator
6828Anya Grosenbaugh
6830Florida A dministrative Code & Register
6836Department of State
6839R. A. Gray Building
6843500 South Bronough Street
6847(eServed)
6848NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
6854A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled
6866to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68 , Florida Statutes.
6875Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate
6885Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original
6894notice of administrative appeal with the agency clerk of the
6904Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of rendition
6913of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the notice,
6925accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk
6936of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where
6947the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party res ides or
6959as otherwise provided by law.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 06/03/2020
- Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding the one-volume Transcript, along with Petitioner's Exhibits, Supplemental Exhibits, and Respondent's Exhibits and Supplemental Exhibits, to the agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/07/2020
- Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellee's motion for attorney's fees and costs is granted. We remand to the Division of Administrative Hearings to determine whether the agency actions wer substantially justified or whether special circumstances exist that would make the award unjust.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/28/2019
- Proceedings: Index, Record, and Certificate of Record sent to the First District Court of Appeal.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/08/2019
- Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Revenue's Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs and Department's Cross-Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/05/2019
- Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed and Certified copy sent to the First District Court of Appeal this date.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2019
- Proceedings: Motion to Determine Entitlement to and Amount of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (filed in Case No. 18-004992RU).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2019
- Proceedings: Motion to Determine Entitlement to and Amount of Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/14/2019
- Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held October 26, 2018). DOAH RETAINED JURISDICTION.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/14/2019
- Proceedings: Order Severing Case No. 18-2772 from Consolidated Case Nos. 18-4775RX and 18-4992RU.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/18/2018
- Proceedings: Order Accepting Proposed Recommended and Final Orders as Timely Filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/17/2018
- Proceedings: Motion to Accept Respondent's Proposed Recommended and Final Orders as Timely Filed filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/14/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Final Order (challenge to the validity of Agency Statement) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/14/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Final Order (challenge to the validity of Administrative Rule 12A-1.044) filed.
- Date: 11/14/2018
- Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 10/26/2018
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 10/24/2018
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Supplemental Exhibits (Exhibit 25) filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/24/2018
- Proceedings: Department of Revenue's Notice of Filing Proposed Supplemental Exhibits filed.
- Date: 10/24/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Supplemental Exhibits (Exhibits 22-24) filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- Date: 10/23/2018
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/23/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Proposed Supplemental Exhibits filed.
- Date: 10/18/2018
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/18/2018
- Proceedings: Department of Revenue's Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/18/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Exhibit (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/15/2018
- Proceedings: GBR Enterprises, Inc.'s, Response Response to the Department's Corrected Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Sections 57.105 and 120.595, Fla. Stat. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/08/2018
- Proceedings: Department's Corrected Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Sections 57.105 and 120.595, Fla. Stat. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/05/2018
- Proceedings: Department's Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Sections 57.105 and 120.595, Fla. Stat. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/25/2018
- Proceedings: GBR Enterprises, Inc.'s, Response to the Department's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- DARREN A. SCHWARTZ
- Date Filed:
- 09/17/2018
- Date Assignment:
- 11/02/2018
- Last Docket Entry:
- 06/03/2020
- Location:
- Micco, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- Department of Revenue
- Suffix:
- RU
Counsels
-
Randi Ellen Dincher, Esquire
Plaza Level-01
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 414-3784 -
Mark S. Hamilton, General Counsel
Post Office Box 6668
Tallahassee, FL 323146668
(850) 617-8347 -
Jonathan W. Taylor, Esquire
Trade Center South, Suite 930
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
(954) 234-2884 -
Timothy E. Dennis, Esquire
Plaza Level 01
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 323991050
(850) 414-3300 -
Joseph C. Moffa, Esquire
Trade Center South, Suite 930
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
(954) 761-3700 -
Rex D. Ware, Esquire
Suite 330
3500 Financial Plaza
Tallahassee, FL 32312
(850) 213-2868 -
Joseph C Moffa, Esquire
Address of Record