STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ) FINAL ORDER

Transcription

1 .~ STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA SARASOTA RETINA INSTITUTE RESEARCH FOUNDATION Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CASE ~O DOR Y'1 ~.r7 - F0 F=' FINAL ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Department of Revenue for the purpose of issuing a Final Order. The Administrative Law JUdge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings heard. this cause and issued a Recommended Order. A copy of that Order is attached to this Final Order. No exceptions to the Recommended Order were filed and there are no proposed substituted orders to consider. The Department of Revenue has jurisdiction of this cause. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The Department adopts and incorporates in this Final Order the statement of the Issue in the Recommended Order. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Department adopts and incorporates in this Final Order the Preliminary Statement in the Recommended Order. FINDINGS OF FACT The Department adopts and incorporates in this Final Order the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Department adopts and incorporates in this Final Order the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order. Based on the foregoing, it is,,/ '~---~-'---'--~ ' ~ _-_ _-----_.. _.----_._--

2 (. ~' ORDERED that the application of the Petitioner as a charitable institution is denied and that the Petitioner be denied a consumer's certificate of exemption. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon county, Florida this l~*h day of March, CERTIFICATE OF FILING (j I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Final Order has been filed in the official records of the Department of Revenue, this 12>+h day of March, ~T~~ A CY CLERK JUDICIAL REVIEW Attachment: Hearing Officer's Recommended Order Copies furnished to: u'---, William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL _._ _..._----_._-_._-~---_._.- Any party to this Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Order pursuant to section , F.S., by the filing -of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk.of the Department in the Office of the General Counsel, Post Office Box 6668, Tallahassee, Florida , and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by the applicable filing fees, with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Order is. filed with the Clerk of the Department _.-

3 ( David P. Johnson, Esquire 2201 Ringling Boulevard suite 104 Sarasota, FL Linda Lettera, General Counsel Ruth Ann smith, Assistant General Counsel Assistant General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, FL _ ~--_.~-._--._~------_._--~ _

4 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SARASOTA RETINA INSTITUTE RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Petitioner, VB. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Respondent. --, CASE NO RECQMMENDED ORDER On November 1, 1996, a formal administrative hearing in this case was held in Sarasota, Florida, before William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings. o For Petitioner: For Respondent: APPEARANCES DaVid P. Johnson, Esquire 2201 Ringling Boulevard, Suite. 104 Sarasota, Florida Ruth Ann Smith Assistant General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida STATEMENT QF THE ISSUE The iss~e in the case is whether th~ Petitioner qualifies as a "scientific organization", as defined at Section (7(o2.c., Florida Statutes, and is therefore entitled to a consumer certificate of taxation exemption. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Institute Research Foundation, Inc. (Petitioner seeks a Consumer By application of November 8. i995, the Sarasota Retina

5 Certificate of Exemption. The application was denied on the grounds that the Petitioner does not meet the requirements of section (7, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner filed a request for hearing. The Petition filed asserts that the Petitioner is a "scientific organization" and a "charitable institution" and is entitled to the certificate of exemption. At the hearing, the Petitioner withdrew the assertion that it is a "charitable institution." At the hearing, the Petitioner called no witnesses and had exhibits numbered 1-7 admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of one witness and had exhibits numbered 1-4 admitted into evidence. The prehearing stipulation filled by the parties was also admitted. A transcript of the hearing was filed. Both parties filed o proposed recommended orders which were considered in the _preparation of this Recommended Order. FINDINGS QF FACT 1~ The Sarasota Retina Institute Research Foundation, Inc., (Petitioner is a non-profit corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c3 of the Internal Revenue Code. 2. The Sarasota Retina Institute (SRI is a private medical practice consisting of th~ee practicing ophthalmologists. 3. The three SRI ophthalmologists are on the seven-member board of directors of the Petitioner. 4. Documents provided by the Petitioner indicate that SRI has been involved in medical clinical studies. Although the Petitioner asserts that it provides financial support for thestudies, the evidence fails to support the assertion. 2

6 5. The Petitioner's Articles of Incorporation state that it is organized for religious, charitable and educational purposes sufficient to qualify for federal tax exemption. The articles do not establish that the Petitioner was briginally organized or is currently organized for scientific research. According to the Articles, the Petitioner's property is held for religious, charitable and educational purposes. 6. The Petitioner's application for IRS exemption states that the activities of the Petitioner are to offer a "source of revenue for educational purposes and research purposes" in the field of human eye disease. The evidence offered at hearing is insufficient to establish that the funds of the Petitioner are being used for research purposes. 7. The evidence indicates that majority of expenditures by ~ the Petitioner are being made not for scientific purposes but, to cover travel and seminar expenses of the SRI ophthalmologists.. - The Petitioner's expenditures are insufficient to establish that the Foundation is a scientific organization. CONCLUSIQNS QF LAW 8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdicti,0n over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section (1, Florida Statutes. 9. The Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it meets the applicable requirements for issuance of a Consumer's Certificate of 3

7 . 10. The Petitioner offered no testimony at the hearing. Althou~h counsel for the Petitioner essentially presented oral legal argument, the argument fails to provide a sufficient basis for Findings of Fact. 11. In relevant part, Section (7(02, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: The provisions of this section shall be strictly defined, limited and applied in each category. * * * "Scientific organizations" means scientific organizations which hold current exemptions from federal income tax under s. 501(c 3 of the Internal Revenue Code and also means organizations the purposes of which is to protect air and water quality or the purpose of which is to protect wildlife and which hold current exemptions from federal income tax under s. 501(c 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. 12. In relevant part, Rule 12A-1.001(3(k1, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The"term "scientific organizations" means scientific organizations in Florida holding a current exemption from federal income tax under s. 501(c 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. This term also means organizations whose purpose is to protect "air and water quality or protect wildlife in Florida and which hold current exemptions from federal income tax under s. 501(c 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. 13. The Petitioner asserts that it is a scientific organization holding a therefore entitled to a 501(c3 federal tax exemption and is Florida Consumer Certificate of Exemption. Although the Petitioner is a 501(c3 organization, the evidence ( fails to establish that the Petit"ioner is a organization. "scientific"

8 rtj I The expenditure of funds to subsidize the travel and educational expenses of the SRI ophthalmologists is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is a scientific organization. The payment of director's expenses, and expenses related to bank charges and fund-raising do not constitute expenditures for research~ There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner directly funds or otherwise sponsors medical research. RECQMMENDATIQN Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,it is reconunendedthat the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for a Consumer's Certificate of Exemption. -RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.. ~TLEBAIlM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida ( SUNCOM Fax Filing ( Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings' this 20th day of December, COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (j 5 ~-_._-----~~~------_._-~--~---~._-_._-.~--._~.._------~ _.

9 Larry Fuchs Executive Director..' Department of Revenue (104 Carlton Building '- Tallahassee, Florida David P. Johnson, Esquire 2201 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 104 Sarasota, Florida Ruth Ann smith Assistant General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS All parties have the.right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case. (~ 6.. -~.. ~-._ ~ -~- -~~- ~