- 8 -
Pasco County ordinance provided a factual basis for respondent's
position that petitioners transferred their permits. We
disagree. The Code enforcement officer testified that nothing in
the Pasco County file indicates that petitioners acknowledged
transferring the permit to Mr. Dakic; and that, under the Pasco
County Code, a buyer must go through the staff review and public
hearing process, even if the seller held a permit; a permittee
cannot guarantee that the County will issue a permit to a new
owner; and, if land is sold, any permit issued to the prior owner
is automatically suspended. We conclude that respondent had no
basis in fact for the contention that petitioners transferred
their Pasco County permits when they sold their land.
Respondent points out that petitioners previously sold sand
from the 76.5-acre tract. Respondent contends that this provides
a basis in fact for respondent's contention that petitioners
transferred sand held for sale. We disagree. Respondent's
reliance on the fact that petitioners had been in the sand mining
business is misplaced because the documents for the transaction,
as confirmed by other evidence, show that petitioners transferred
only land, and not the sand mine, sand, or any other assets.
We conclude that respondent's position had no basis in fact
when respondent issued the notice of deficiency or during the
litigation of this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011