CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 17294, 2009 WL 3878543
...notice that the Department was rejecting its claim for a refund of $1 million. It is with this contention that we disagree. On appeal, DOR has taken the position that this so-called "bill" observed adequate compliance with the notice requirements of section 220.711....
...If it perceives that the amount of tax is less than correct, it is to issue the taxpayer a notice of deficiency "setting forth the amount of additional tax and any penalties proposed to be assessed." This is what DOR did with respect to Catalina in March, 2002. Section 220.711 sets forth the requirements for what a notice of deficiency must contain. The "bill" submitted in September, 2003, while not employing the caption "notice of deficiency," nevertheless complies with section 220.711....
...received. We do not believe that Catalina was justified in expecting DOR to follow the Administrative Code's procedure for ordinary bills, which, as will be explained below, should not contain this sixty-day language. Catalina attempts to circumvent section 220.711 by arguing that "bills" are something totally separate and apart from notices of deficiency and are handled in an entirely different fashion....
...material, and DOR might then be obligated to send another notice of deficiency after paying the refund. In any event, we find that the September, 2003, "bill" sent to Catalina complied with the requirements for a notice of deficiency as set forth in section 220.711....
