Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 So. 357 (1907)). Tucker's former agency had the responsibility to perform audits to ensure proper payment of taxes, and failure to pay due taxes is a crime. §§ 20.21(3)(c)-(d), 212.18(2); 212.15(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (1987); § 213.34, Fla....

...[4] In fact, such a procedure appears to be at odds with the legislation discussed below. The most recent expression of the Legislature in regard to the Department's audit and assessment procedures strongly undermines the Department's position in this case. Section 213.34(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), provides as follows: 213.34 Authority to audit....

...(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 215.26, the department shall offset the overpayment of any tax during an audit period against a deficiency of any tax, penalty, or interest determined to be due during the same audit period. As shown above, section 213.34 specifically states that the Department shall offset the overpayment of any tax during an audit period against a deficiency of any tax determined to be due during the same audit period....

...[5] Here, although there was no audit of an alleged overpayment of insurance premium taxes in the audit period under review, *1130 we are of the view that this omission works against the Department, rather than against the taxpayer. By reference to section 215.26, the language of section 213.34(4) appears to place a responsibility upon the state, through its departments and officials, correctly and timely to determine the tax burden falling upon the taxpayer, over and above its responsibilities in merely responding to claims for a refund....

...We view these amendments as remedial legislation, and therefore applicable to the resolution of the case before us. See, Arrow Air, Inc. v. Walsh, 645 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla. 1994); Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So.2d 239, 241-242 (Fla. 1977). Reading section 213.34(4) in pari materia with section 624.509(4) and the refund provisions to which section 213.34(4) refers, in the light of the principles stated and the arguments and contentions discussed above, leads us to conclude that the Department was not authorized to create a tax deficiency and levy an assessment upon Kemper based upon a partial audit of Kemper's chapters 220, 221, and 624 tax returns....

...n provided by section 212.03(7)(a), and thus whether they are subject to audit. The Hales do not contest that the Department has authority to examine their records to the extent necessary to determine whether the Hales qualify for the exemption. See § 213.34, Fla....

excise tax on documents. . . ." Pursuant to section 213.34(1), Florida Statutes, the department is authorized