Why are the proposed rule amendments necessary? What do ...

Executive Director

Leon M. Biegalski

December 13, 2017

MEMORANDUM

TO:

The Honorable Rick Scott, Governor

Attention: Kristin Olson, Deputy Chief of Staff

Amanda Carey, Deputy Cabinet Affairs Director

The Honorable Jimmy Patronis, Chief Financial Officer Attention: Robert Tornillo, Director of Cabinet Affairs

Stephanie Leeds, Deputy Director of Cabinet Affairs

The Honorable Pam Bondi, Attorney General Attention: Andrew Fay, Director of Legislative and Cabinet Affairs

Erin Sumpter, Deputy Director of Cabinet Affairs

The Honorable Adam Putnam, Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Attention: Brooke McKnight, Director of Cabinet Affairs Jessica Field, Deputy Cabinet Affairs Director

THRU:

Leon Biegalski, Executive Director

FROM:

Debbie Longman, Director, Legislative and Cabinet Services

SUBJECT: Request for approval to publish Notices of Proposed Rule

Statement of Sections 120.54(3)(b) and 120.541, F.S., Impact: No impact The Department has reviewed these proposed amended rules for compliance with sections 120.54(3)(b) and 120.541, F.S. These proposed rules will not have an adverse impact on small businesses, small counties, or small cities, and they are not likely to have an increased regulatory cost in excess of $200,000 within one year. Additionally, the proposed rules are not likely to have an adverse impact or increased regulatory costs in excess of $1,000,000 within five years.

What is the Department requesting? Section 120.54(3)(a), F.S., requires the Department to obtain the Cabinet's approval to hold public hearings for proposed amended rules. The Department requests approval

Child Support ? Ann Coffin, Director General Tax Administration ? Maria Johnson, Director Property Tax Oversight? Dr. Maurice Gogarty, Director Information Services ? Damu Kuttikrishnan, Director

Florida Department of Revenue Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100

Memorandum December 13, 2017 Page 2

to publish a Notice of Proposed Rule in the Florida Administrative Register for each of the following proposed rules.

Why are the proposed rule amendments necessary? The proposed amended rules are necessary to ensure that Rule 12D-9.020, F.A.C., is consistent with an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling regarding the exchange of evidence in the value adjustment board (VAB) hearing process, as well as with Chapter 2016128, s. 10, and Chapter 2013-109, s. 8, Laws of Florida, and to include exchange of evidence information on the petition forms.

What do the proposed amendments to these rules do? Rule 12D-9.020, F.A.C., Exchange of Evidence. The proposed changes implement the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling in Rob Turner, Hillsborough County Property Appraiser vs. Department of Revenue, and Chapter 2016-128, s. 10, and Chapter 2013-109, s. 8, Laws of Florida.

Rule 12D-16.002, F.A.C., Index to Forms The proposed amendments to Forms DR-486, Petition to the Value Adjustment Board ? Request for Hearing, and DR-486PORT, Petition to the Value Adjustment Board ? Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference ? Request for Hearing, update the forms to include an additional page 3, titled "Information for the Taxpayer," which provides the taxpayer with useful reference material on the VAB process.

Were comments received from external parties? Yes. The Department published a Notice of Rule Development on October 27, 2017, and held a workshop on November 14, 2017. Several interested parties attended. The Department received comments during and after the public workshop. After review, no changes were made to the proposed text in response to those comments.

Attachments Summaries of the proposed rules, which include: o Statements of facts and circumstances justifying the rules o Federal comparison statements o Summary of workshop Draft Notices of Proposed Rule with rule text Incorporated materials

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT PROGRAM CHAPTER 12D-9, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARDS IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS; UNIFORM RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE HEARINGS BEFORE VALUE

ADJUSTMENT BOARDS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 12D-9.020, F.A.C.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE The proposed amended rules are necessary to ensure that Rule 12D-9.020, F.A.C., is consistent with an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling regarding the exchange of evidence in the value adjustment board (VAB) hearing process, as well as with Chapter 2016-128, s. 10, and Chapter 2013-109, s. 8, Laws of Florida.

FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING PROPOSED RULE The proposed amendments to this rule will implement the ALJ's ruling in Rob Turner, Hillsborough County Property Appraiser vs. Department of Revenue, and Chapter 2016-128, s. 10, and Chapter 2013-109, s. 8, Laws of Florida.

FEDERAL COMPARISON STATEMENT The provisions contained in this proposed amended rule chapter do not conflict with comparable federal laws, policies, or standards.

1

SUMMARY OF RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP HELD NOVEMBER 14, 2017 The Department of Revenue published a Notice of Rule Development for proposed amendments to Rule 12D-9.020, F.A.C., in the Florida Administrative Register (F.A.R.) on October 27, 2017 (Vol. 43, No. 209, pp. 4755-4756). The Department held a rule development workshop on November 14, 2017, and invited interested parties and county officials to attend in person and through a teleconference system. The Department received comments during and after the public workshop. The Department made no changes based on those comments.

2

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Property Tax Oversight Program

RULE NO:

RULE TITLE:

12D-9.020

Exchange of Evidence

PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of the amendment to Rule 12D-9.020, F.A.C., is to

implement the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling in Rob Turner, Hillsborough County

Property Appraiser vs. Department of Revenue. The effect of this rule amendment is to make the

rule consistent with the ALJ's ruling regarding the exchange of evidence in the value adjustment

board (VAB) hearing process, as well as with Chapter 2016-128, s. 10, and Chapter 2013-109, s.

8, Laws of Florida.

SUMMARY: The amended rule provides consistency with an ALJ ruling regarding the

exchange of evidence in the value adjustment board hearing process.

SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS AND

LEGISLATIVE RATIFICATION: The Department has determined that this rule will not have an

adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in

excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost (SERC) has not been prepared by the Department.

The Department has determined that this proposed rule is not expected to require legislative

ratification based on the SERC or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon

and described herein: 1) no requirement for a SERC was triggered under Section 120.541(1),

F.S.; and, 2) based on past experiences with activities for providing the public tax information

and rules of this nature, the adverse impact or regulatory cost, if any, do not exceed nor would

exceed any one of the economic analysis criteria in a SERC, as set forth in Section 120.541(2)(a), F.S. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a SERC, or to provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: 194.011(5), 194.034(1), 195.027(1), 213.06(1) FS. LAW IMPLEMENTED: 194.011, 194.015, 194.032, 194.034, 194.035, 195.022 FS. IF REQUESTED WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A HEARING WILL BE HELD AT THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW (IF NOT REQUESTED, THIS HEARING WILL NOT BE HELD): DATE AND TIME: January 9, 2018, 10:00 a.m. PLACE: Capital Circle Office Complex, Building 2, Room 1221, 2450 Shumard Oak Blvd, Tallahassee, Florida. NOTICE UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: Pursuant to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in any rulemaking proceeding before the Property Tax Oversight Program is asked to advise the Department at least 48 hours before the proceeding by contacting Mike Cotton at (850)617-8870. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may contact the Department using the Florida Relay Service, which can be reached at (800)955-8770 (Voice) and (800)955-8771 (TDD). THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE IS: Mike Cotton, Tax Law Specialist, Property Tax Oversight Program, Department of Revenue, 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32315-3000, telephone: (850)617-8870, email: mike.cotton@.

THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE IS:

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT PROGRAM CHAPTER 12D-9, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARDS IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS; UNIFORM RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS BEFORE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARDS AMENDING RULE 12D-9.020

12D-9.020 Exchange of Evidence. (1)(a)1. At least 15 days before a petition hearing, the petitioner shall provide to the property appraiser a list of evidence to be presented at the hearing, a summary of evidence to be presented by witnesses, and copies of all documentation to be presented at the hearing. 2. To calculate the fifteen (15) days, the petitioner shall use calendar days and shall not include the day of the hearing in the calculation, and shall count backwards from the day of the hearing. The last day of the period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next previous day that is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. (b) A petitioner's noncompliance with paragraph (1)(a) does not affect the petitioner's right to receive a copy of the current property record card from the property appraiser as described in Section 194.032(2)(a), F.S. (c) A petitioner's noncompliance with paragraph (1)(a) does not authorize a value adjustment board or special magistrate to exclude the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner has the option of

1

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download