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
Meeting Type
Value Adjustment Board
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/10/2011
Meeting Body
Value Adjustment Board
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
substituted based upon his review of applicable law, the rules of the Florida Department of <br /> • Revenue, and the instruction letter received from the Florida Department of Revenue. <br /> The Board sought further details regarding this matter posing questions to <br /> Attorney Hancock. During the discussion, Attorney Hancock pointed out that the purpose of the <br /> VAB is to apply current law, and not to make new law. <br /> 5.A.2. STEPHEN BOYLE,PETITIONER, TO ADDRESS THE BOARD REGARDING PETITION <br /> 2010-0108 <br /> Stephen Boyle provided a layman's standpoint of the steps taken in the VAB <br /> process regarding his 2009 and 2010 Petitions. <br /> Attorney Paul Berg spoke on behalf of Mr. Boyle, stating that this issue is <br /> basically a difference of opinion between Attorney Hancock and the Special Magistrate. He <br /> questioned whether the VAB Attorney could draft a "rationale" of findings of fact and <br /> conclusions of law when someone else had been contracted to do that for the VAB, and he <br /> • questioned whether the Attorney could present such evidence to the Board at this meeting. He <br /> told the Board if they follow the Attorney's recommended "rationale" they would be denying the <br /> Petitioner his constitutional right, and he questioned why he was being forced to take this matter <br /> to Circuit Court. He asked the Board to take the recommendation on behalf of the taxpayer and <br /> grant the taxpayer, Mr. Boyle, his constitutional right. <br /> Attorney Hancock, in his defense, explained that his responsibility as Attorney to <br /> the VAB was to ensure the VAB acts in accordance with the law, stating that all the material <br /> provided to the Board was also provided to the Florida Department of Revenue Attorney. He <br /> added that if the recommended decision does not comply with Florida Statutes and the DOR <br /> Rules, the VAB has no authority to adopt the Special Magistrate's recommended decision in the <br /> form that it was submitted. <br /> Petitioner Boyle continued to argue his opinion, asking the Board to consider the <br /> facts of the case, and to do the right thing. <br /> Chairman Flescher supported the actions taken by the VAB Attorney in this <br /> • matter. <br /> 2010 VAB FINAL MEETING 4 <br /> March 10,2011 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.