My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/10/2011
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2011
>
03/10/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2015 1:28:34 PM
Creation date
8/19/2015 1:28:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Board Organizational Meeting Minutes of August 4, 2010, <br /> as written. <br /> 5. ACT UPON MATTERS PENDING BEFORE THE VALUE <br /> ADJUSTMENT BOARD <br /> S.A. PETITIONS RELATING TO PORTABILITY <br /> S.A.1. VAB ATTORNEY HANCOCK TO DISCUSS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S <br /> WORKSHEET FOR PETITION 2010-0108 <br /> VAB Attorney Hancock reviewed the new Department of Revenue rules and <br /> Procedures that the Petitioners and Board must operate under, and provided guidance to the <br /> Board on handling additional evidence, or the scheduling of a second hearing. He explained the <br /> need to have a majority vote for approval; a 3-1 vote, and in the situation of a 2-2 vote, a second <br /> motion would be required. <br /> • With respect to Petition 2010-0108, Attorney Hancock explained that he was <br /> notified by the Board Clerk to review the Special Magistrate's recommended decision to <br /> determine if the Special Magistrate's recommended decision was appropriately completed. <br /> After review, it was his opinion that the Special Magistrate did not correctly apply the <br /> Department of Revenue Rules, nor did the recommended decision comply with Florida Law. <br /> He advised the Board that he received a letter (on record) from the Florida <br /> Department of Revenue that confirmed his opinion as to how the law on Portability is to be <br /> applied. He requested that the Special Magistrate revise her recommended decision to comply <br /> with Florida Law in accordance with the letter from the Department of Revenue, and his <br /> previous letter. The Special Magistrate submitted a second recommended decision, but did not <br /> revise her findings of fact and conclusions of law to comply with the rules and terms of Florida <br /> Law. Therefore, Attorney Hancock requested the Board to adopt the Special <br /> Magistrate's second recommended decision with the correct mathematical calculation, denying <br /> relief, and to reject the Special Magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and instead, <br /> 1111 adopt the VAB Attorney's "rationale" of the findings of fact and conclusions of law that he <br /> 2010 VAB FINAL MEETING 3 <br /> March 10,2011 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.