Firm Overview

Below Are A Handful Of The Cases Tried By Our Firm For Our Clients

• Bests Maintenance and Janitorial Services v. Department of Revenue, Case No. 08-3478 (DOAH Feb. 3, 2009). Bests is a cleaning and maintenance company that contracted with state colleges to provide janitorial services. The DOR claimed it owed use tax on the purchase of paper products and soap to refill its customers dispensers. On behalf of Bests, Mr. Moffa argued and won on the grounds that the purchase of such products was incidental to the main purpose of the service contracts.
• Spectramin, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Case No. 04-0549 (DOAH Jan. 24, 2005) & Dunhill International List Co., Inc. v. Department of Revenue (DOAH Oct. 16 2003) . In these companion cases, the Department asserted the taxpayer owed $150,000 in sales and/or use tax for its purchase of mailing lists that were compiled on magnetic tapes. At the time there was no appellate case on point and the DOAH court agreed with Mr. Moffa in that the information was intangible property, therefore, not subject to Florida sales or use tax.
• Park Place Manufactured Housing Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Case No. 04-0415 (DOAH June 25, 2004). In this case Park Place was a Florida business engaged in refurbishing and selling mobile homes to the general public. The DOR claimed the taxpayer owed some $45,000 in tax because the mobile homes were real property that was leased under a Lease Option Rental Agreement. Mr. Moffa countered successfully by arguing that the taxpayer bought the mobile homes, tangible personal property, for resale. As such no tax was due on the purchase of the personal property.
• Packaged Ice, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Case. No. 02-1110 (DOAH August 27, 2002). The taxpayer in this case was a Texas Corporation and the largest manufacturer and distributor of packages ice in the United States. Specifically, the taxpayer placed equipment in retail stores and delivers bagged ice to be stored in the equipment for sale. The Taxpayer also installed in store ice factories in some 2900 location in which the machine automatically produces, bags, and stores ice for sale. The DOR contended that the store was in effect leasing the equipment kept in the store by the taxpayer and tax was due for the rental of such property. Mr. Moffa successfully countered by arguing that the taxpayer did not relinquish possession and control of the machines and were only usable when the taxpayer cause them to manufacture and bag ice. Therefore, there was no rental of equipment which absolved the taxpayer of $137,000 of tax liability.

The firm's origins began in 1991, when managing shareholder, Joseph C. Moffa, CPA, Esq., after spending 10 years heading up the Florida state and local tax (SALT) practice of Deloitte & Touche, LLP, started his own law firm focusing almost exclusively on tax controversy work against the Florida Department of Revenue. Mr. James H. Sutton, Jr., CPA, Esq. joined the firm in 2011 after 17 years as a CPA and 12 years as an attorney, including 3 years for Arthur Andersen, LLP's State and Local Tax practice and teaching State and Local Taxation as an adjunct professor at Stetson University College of Law for 6 years. Our firm is actively involved in the CPA and legal communities of Florida including lecturing on Florida SALT topics for the FICPA and local chapters of the Bar Association and accounting organizations, teaching at a Florida law school, and committee work with both the FICPA and Florida Bar Tax Section.

We are a law firm dedicated to aggressively representing taxpayers against the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR). This is simply what we do. If any of the following apply to you, then you should get in touch with a tax professional experienced with the laws, rules, and case law for Florida's complex taxes.