Coulter Electronics, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
| Decision Date | 29 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. JJ-235,JJ-235 |
| Citation | 365 So.2d 806 |
| Parties | COULTER ELECTRONICS, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Brian C. Ellis and Robert B. Glenn, Jr., of Holland & Knight, Tampa, for appellant.
E. Wilson Crump, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This cause is before us on appeal from final agency action upholding the corporate income tax deficiencies assessed by the Department of Revenue (DOR) against Coulter Electronics, Inc., (Coulter) of $39,436 for the 1973 tax year and $324 for the 1974 tax year.
Two issues were presented below and are before us on appeal: (1) Whether certain transactions between Coulter and its subsidiary corporations are within the definition of "sales" and includable in the sales factor of the corporate income tax apportionment formula of Florida Statute § 214.71(3), and (2) whether changes made by the Division of Statutory Revision and Indexing in the 1971 enactment which is codified as Florida Statute § 214.71(3) were effective during the taxable years in question here.
The facts are that Coulter manufactures and sells machinery and instruments used by the medical profession. Coulter has two subsidiary corporations: (1) Coulter Diagnostics, Inc. (Diagnostics) a 100% Owned subsidiary, that produces chemical agents used by customers in connection with the machinery and instruments manufactured by Coulter and (2) Blood Services (Services) a 92% Owned subsidiary, that provides materials used and consumed by Diagnostics in manufacturing chemical agents. Coulter, Diagnostics and Services filed consolidated federal and Florida income tax returns for the fiscal years ending March 31, of 1973 and 1974, the years in question here.
The DOR's claim of the right to additional tax is based on transactions between Coulter and the subsidiaries which DOR contends are "sales." It is undisputed that Coulter makes all the sales to ultimate customers of products manufactured by Diagnostics and that Diagnostics does not make sales to unrelated third parties. Thus, while all products manufactured by Diagnostics are actually delivered to the customer by Diagnostics, the invoice is rendered by Coulter and payment is made by the ultimate customer to Coulter. Services sells most of its products to Diagnostics and the materials produced by Services are used and consumed by Diagnostics in manufacturing its products. Because Coulter, rather than Diagnostics, renders the invoices to customers for products manufactured and delivered by Diagnostics to outside customers, Coulter treats Diagnostics as having sold the product to Coulter for internal accounting purposes. Similarly, Coulter treats Services as having sold its products to Diagnostics for internal accounting purposes. However, no invoices for such "inter-company sales" are prepared on a "sale-by-sale" basis, and instead there is merely a monthly recapitulation prepared of all such "sales." In addition, no payments are ever made by Coulter to Diagnostics, or by Diagnostics to Services, with respect to the so-called "sales." Finally, there is no delivery of any product from Diagnostics to Coulter. The products in question are delivered by Diagnostics to the ultimate customer. The so-called "sales" made by Services to Diagnostics, and by Diagnostics to Coulter, are called "sales" by the parties only for the sake of simplicity. These inter-company sales are disregarded for the purpose of federal income tax.
DOR contends that the foregoing transactions are "sales" generating income apportioned to Florida under Florida Statute Chapter 214. Chapter 214 generally provides that the portion of a taxpayer's federal taxable income subject to tax in Florida shall be determined by multiplying such income by a three-part apportionment formula consisting of the ratio of the taxpayer's Florida property to its total property everywhere; the ratio of the taxpayer's Florida payroll to its total payroll everywhere; and the ratio of the taxpayer's Florida sales to its total sales everywhere. The sales factor is then weighted 50% And the property and payroll factors are each weighted 25%.
We hold that the inter-company transactions in this case do not constitute sales within the meaning of Florida Statute § 214.71(3) and § 220.15(1), and are not required to be included in Coulter's sales factor for the purpose of the apportionment formula for the years in question. Under § 220.15(1) the term "sales" as used in the apportionment formula, is defined to include gross receipts. In this way the Legislature included within "sales," for the purpose of the apportionment formula, the gross receipts derived from services or other sources Not traditionally viewed as sales. This does not mean, however, that the basic indicia of a sale have been dispensed with by the statute.
There are none of the indicia of a sale present in the inter-company transactions here. There is no transfer or exchange of goods or services and no payment, either actual or contemplated. The inter-company transactions also lack "delivery," the factor under Florida Statute § 214.71 which determines whether a sale of tangible personal property has occurred in Florida. Coulter has business purposes for its internal account procedures which, basically, allow Coulter to send the invoices to, and receive payments from, the actual customers for the sales and services of both parent and subsidiary corporations. Coulter has already paid the income tax due on the basis of all sales to customers in Florida. The inclusion of the inter-company transactions would, in this case, artificially inflate (and in other cases artificially deflate) the sales factor with corresponding effect on the tax paid by businesses operating in Florida and in other states in the parent/subsidiary form. The result would be to defeat the legislative intent in the enactment of the apportionment formula, which is to tax that portion of a multi-state corporate income derived from business activities in Florida.
There is a second basis for our holding in this case and that is that for the years 1973 and 1974 the provision of Florida Statute § 214.71(3), relied on by DOR as authority for its deficiency assessment applied only to financial organizations, which appellants admittedly are not. The statute in question, as enacted by Laws of 1971, Chapter 71-359, § 19, effective July 1, 1971, provided:
"(3) The sales factor (for apportionment formula) is a fraction of the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the taxable year or period and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the taxable year or period.
(1) The property is delivered or shipped to a purchaser within this state . . .
(1) Fees,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banks v. State, 78-1030
...DCA 1976); Castle v. State, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976); Coney v. State, 341 So.2d 238 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Coulter Electronics, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 365 So.2d 806 (Fla.1st DCA 1978); State v. Oliver, 368 So.2d 1331 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2......
-
Romano v. State, 97-1940
...law. See §§ 11.2421-.2424, Fla. Stat. (1995); cf. Shuman v. State, 358 So.2d 1333, 1337-38 (Fla.1978); Coulter Elecs. v. Department of Revenue, 365 So.2d 806, 809-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); see generally Sandra M. Anderson, Revising: The Process of Statutory Revision in Florida, 6 FLA. ST. U.L......
-
Department of Revenue v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., ANHEUSER-BUSC
...facts (among others which will be discussed), the trial court, relying on this court's decision in Coulter Electronics, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 365 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Tropicana Products, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Case No. CA-74-1799, 12th Judicial Circuit in and ......
-
Department of Revenue v. Parker Banana Co., 79-581
...is within this state. The Department has cited to us, in support of its position, the decision in Coulter Electronics, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 365 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In that case our sister court held that certain inter-company sales were not sales. In reaching that concl......
-
Florida Department Of Revenue Rules On Sales Factor Treatment Of Online Tuition And Hedging Receipts
...See Department of Revenue v. Anheuser- Busch, 527 So.2d 877 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988) and Coulter Electronics v. Department of Revenue, 365 So.2d 806 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 12 FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 12-C-1.10155(2)(e). 13 See Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board, 139 P.3d 1169 (Cal. 2006......