18-004992RU Gbr Enterprises, Inc. vs. Department Of Revenue
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Monday, January 14, 2019.


View Dockets  
Summary: DOR exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority as to existing rule and the rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes law implemented. However, agency statement is not a rule.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
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: 05/28/2020
Proceedings: Mandate
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2020
Proceedings: Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2020
Proceedings: Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2020
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2020
Proceedings: Opinion
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: 03/06/2019
Proceedings: Invoice for the record on appeal mailed.
PDF:
Date: 03/06/2019
Proceedings: Index (of the Record) sent to the parties of record.
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2019
Proceedings: Order Granting Respondent's Unopposed Motion to Stay.
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: 02/08/2019
Proceedings: Respondent's Unopposed Motion to Stay filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2019
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, First DCA Case No. 1D19-0437 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: 02/04/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed.
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: DOAH Final Order
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: 12/17/2018
Proceedings: Department of Revenue's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2018
Proceedings: Department of Revenue's Proposed Final Order 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.
PDF:
Date: 12/14/2018
Proceedings: Appendix to Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/14/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
Date: 11/14/2018
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 10/26/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/25/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Request for Official Recognition filed.
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.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2018
Proceedings: Unilateral Pre-hearing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2018
Proceedings: Department of Revenue's Pre-hearing Statement 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: 10/17/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2018
Proceedings: Department of Revenue's Motion for Judicial Notice 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: 09/27/2018
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2018
Proceedings: GBR Enterprises, Inc.'s, Response to the Department's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition of Randy Stanley filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2018
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case No. 18-4992RU).
PDF:
Date: 09/20/2018
Proceedings: Agreed Motion for Consolidation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Randi Dincher) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2018
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2018
Proceedings: Rule Challenge transmittal letter to Ernest Reddick from Claudia Llado copying Ken Plante and the Agency General Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 09/17/2018
Proceedings: Petition to Challenge Rule 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

Related Florida Statute(s) (22):