MR. COMFORT FURNITURE CORP.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed and remanded a case where a taxpayer's petition challenging a tax assessment was dismissed as untimely. The court found that disputed facts regarding the notice of assessment's mailing date necessitated an evidentiary hearing.
The dismissal was improper because the timeliness of the petition depended on disputed facts that required an evidentiary hearing. The court held that an agency must provide evidence of notice transmission for a petition to be deemed untimely.
[1] When a taxpayer disputes receipt of notice of a tax assessment and the record lacks evidence establishing the date the notice was transmitted, an evidentiary hearing must…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because there was no hearing before the agency action and because the validity of the agency’s order dismissing the petition depends on disputed facts establishing or failing to establish the timeliness of the petition, we remand the case for an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the core reason for reversal and remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Comfort Furniture Corp. challenged a tax assessment, but the Department of Revenue dismissed its petition for administrative hearing as untimely. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Disputed Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
BILBREY, J. Mr. Comfort Furniture Corp. appeals final agency action by the Department of Revenue dismissing, with prejudice, its petition for administrative hearing challenging a tax assessment. See §§ 120.569(2), 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2020). The Department dismissed the petition as untimely under section 72.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2020), which requires a taxpayer to bring any such challenge within 60 days after the assessment becomes final. However, in its petition for administrative hearing, Mr. Comfort denied ever receiving the notice of proposed tax assessment. It also asserted that the required notice of proposed tax assessment was not issued by the Department on the date printed on the assessment form in the record. The documents in the record lack any indication that the Department sent the notice to Mr. Comfort
or its representative on the date printed on the form. As no hearing was held, there is no testimony or other evidence in the record to establish the date the notice was transmitted or mailed. Because there was no hearing before the agency action and because the validity of the agency’s order dismissing the petition depends on disputed facts establishing or failing to establish the timeliness of the petition, we remand the case for an evidentiary hearing. See § 120.68(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021). Further proceedings are necessary under sections 120.569 and 120.57 to determine the disputed facts on the timeliness of the petition, the date the notice of proposed assessment was issued, and whether any tolling occurred. See Campbell v. Dep’t of Health, 233 So. 3d 488, 489–90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); see also Roeder v. Florida Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 303 So. 3d 979, 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROBERTS and RAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ADN Global, LLC v. Fla. Dep't of Revenue, 418 So. 3d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Campbell v. Dep't OF Health, 233 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Roeder v. Fla. Dep't of Env't Prot., 303 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)