Fluent in English, Spanish & Italian | 888-882-9243

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Blog

Audit-Proof Your Build: How Florida Contractors Can Survive & Prepare For Sales and Use Tax Audits

Sales and use tax audits of Florida construction contractors are becoming more frequent due to the state’s complex tax laws and the blurred lines between taxable and non-taxable activities. 

Florida real estate contractors can successfully survive sales and use tax audits by understanding state rules, meticulously organizing documentation, and proactively preparing for Department of Revenue scrutiny. Below is a guide designed for practical use and client-facing communication.

Key Audit Triggers in Construction

Audits are common in real estate and construction due to the complex distinction between real property improvements and the sale of tangible personal property (TPP). The state is vigilant about issues such as:

·         Misclassifying real property improvements (permanently installed items) versus installations of removable items (TPP).

·         Misuse of resale and exemption certificates.

·         Failure to pay use tax on out-of-state or untaxed purchases.

Documentation Is Your Best Defense

During an audit, contractors should have the following records immediately accessible and well-organized:

·         Sales tax returns (DR-15), federal tax returns, bank statements, and deposit records.

·         Job contracts, invoices, purchase documents, and proof of tax paid on materials for real property improvements.

·         Valid exemption and resale certificates, with clear support for all exempt sales.

·         Reconciliation of sales reported to the state with actual receipts and federal income.

Understand Florida’s Construction Sales Tax Nuances

·         Contractors generally pay sales tax when purchasing materials for real property improvements but do not charge sales tax to customers for the finished work.

·         Contractors who sell and install TPP (items not permanently affixed) must collect sales tax from customers and may buy those items tax-free for resale.

·         Different contract types (lump-sum vs. retail plus installation) receive different tax treatments; misclassification can trigger substantial penalties.

·         Special attention is needed for projects involving fixtures, contracts with nonprofit or exempt entities, and imported materials that may require self-assessment of use tax.

Sales Tax Based on Contract Type

The contract structure often determines whether a contractor must pay sales tax on materials or collect it from customers:

·         Lump-sum, cost-plus, fixed-fee, guaranteed-price, and time-and-material contracts: The contractor is considered the consumer and pays sales tax on materials but does not collect tax from the customer.

·         Retail sales plus installation contracts: The customer is the consumer. The contractor purchases materials tax-free for resale, itemizes materials separately, and applies sales tax on those items to the customer.

Understanding how the Department of Revenue classifies each contract type is crucial for ensuring the correct tax treatment.

Common Audit Triggers and Special Situations

Sales and use tax audits often focus on areas where contractors unintentionally make mistakes:

·         Subcontractors (such as electricians and plumbers) usually pay sales tax on materials used for real property improvements.

·         General contractors (GCs) may owe tax on rentals of temporary items like trailers, scaffolding, portable toilets, and equipment. However, if the rental includes an operator, the charge may qualify as a nontaxable service.

·         Imported materials are a major audit focus. Contractors importing construction materials through Florida ports must self-assess and remit use tax to the state. Federal import records are shared with Florida, so failure to remit use tax often triggers an audit.

·         Government contracts have unique rules. If a state or federal entity purchases construction materials directly, those items are usually exempt from sales tax. When the contractor buys the materials, however, tax may apply unless specific procedures are followed.

Surviving the Audit: Strategies and Pro Tips

·         Respond promptly and professionally to audit notices (typically Form DR-840).

·         Limit disclosure to only requested records. Over-providing documents can prompt additional scrutiny.

·         Conduct internal audits to identify potential exposure areas before state auditors arrive.

·         Ensure digital backups of all major business documents, including Excel or digital data for ease of auditor sampling.

·         Seek advice from a CPA or tax attorney with deep Florida construction tax experience when responding to audit inquiries.

Risks of Poor Preparation

·         Audits often result in penalties for imprecise recordkeeping, improper use of certificates, or misreported contract types.

·         Failure to catch unpaid use taxes on out-of-state purchases is a common and costly assessment area.

·         Incomplete records allow auditors to estimate liabilities—almost always to the taxpayer’s disadvantage.

Bottom Line

Sales and use tax audits for Florida contractors are legal battles grounded in paperwork, contract terms, and tax rule nuance. With preparation, organization, and proper professional support from an experienced tax attorney, contractors can minimize risk, limit assessments, and keep projects moving forward confidently. 

Our experienced team at Marini & Associates, PA works closely with contractors and construction businesses statewide to resolve audit issues and develop tailored compliance strategies. 

Contact us today to schedule a consultation and protect your business from costly mistake.

Need Help With A Florida Sales And Use Tax Audit

Or Have Questions About Your Compliance?

     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 


for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or 
Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Eighth Circuit Overturns IRS in 3M Transfer Pricing Battle: A Post–Loper Bright Landmark Decision

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a pivotal decision on October 1, 2025, in 3M Company and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, 136 AFTR 2d 2025-5252 (CA8), reversing the U.S. Tax Court’s 2023 ruling in favor of the IRS. The court held that the IRS could not impose U.S. tax on “blocked” royalty income that 3M was legally prohibited from receiving under Brazilian law.

Background

The dispute stemmed from 3M’s intercompany licensing arrangement with its Brazilian subsidiary, which paid royalties capped by Brazilian regulations at 1% of sales. The IRS determined that the arm’s-length rate should have been 6%, asserting that the company underreported its income by approximately $23.7 million. Relying on its “blocked income” regulation under Treasury Regulation §1.482-1(h)(2), the IRS reallocated income to 3M’s U.S. parent despite the Brazilian payment restrictions.

In 2023, the Tax Court narrowly (9–8) upheld the IRS’s adjustment, concluding that the regulation properly implemented IRC §482. 3M appealed, arguing that it could not be taxed on income that foreign law prohibited it from receiving and that the regulation conflicted with the statute’s text.

The Eighth Circuit’s Ruling

The Eighth Circuit reversed the Tax Court, rejecting the IRS’s interpretation of §482 and invalidating the blocked income regulation within its jurisdiction. Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision, which ended Chevron deference, the panel held that courts, not agencies, must determine the “best reading” of tax statutes. 

The Judges Concluded That §482 Does Not Authorize The IRS To Impute Income That Taxpayers Cannot Legally Earn Abroad.

The court further dismissed the IRS’s alternative argument that it could recharacterize the blocked royalties as dividends, calling that stance “breathtaking in its potential reach.” It emphasized that taxpayers are not required to violate foreign law to satisfy U.S. transfer pricing principles.

Broader Implications

This ruling is one of the first appellate applications of Loper Bright in the tax context and significantly limits the IRS’s regulatory reach in cross-border transfer pricing. Within the Eighth Circuit, the court’s reasoning effectively invalidates the blocked income regulation, requiring the IRS to respect foreign legal constraints when applying §482 adjustments.

For multinational taxpayers, the case signals a new landscape: judicial interpretation will likely override agency-driven transfer pricing positions when statutory authority is ambiguous. Companies with subsidiaries in jurisdictions imposing currency controls or profit remittance restrictions may find stronger grounds to challenge IRS allocations that disregard foreign law.

 Have an IRS Tax Problem?


     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 


for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or 
Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)





Sources: 

1.       https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/3m-co-v-commissioner-irs-shipwrecks-7138399/  

2.      https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2025/10/1/eighth-circuit-reverses-tax-court-in-3m-restricting-482-allocations-of-blocked-foreign-income 

3.      https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/newsletters/pricing-knowledge-network/assets/pwc-eighth-circuit-reverses-us-tax-court’s-ruling-in-3M-appeal.pdf     

4.      https://exactera.com/resources/when_economic_reality_meets_legal_reality_new_lessons_from_3m/    

5.       https://academyoftaxlaw.com/document/3m-company-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-case-summary/ 

6.      https://www.millerchevalier.com/publication/3m-wins-blocked-income-transfer-pricing-dispute-eighth-circuit

7.       https://www.gibsondunn.com/eighth-circuit-holds-that-irs-may-not-tax-domestic-parent-company-on-royalties-it-could-not-legally-receive-from-a-foreign-subsidiary/

8.      https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathangoldman/2025/10/02/3-key-ways-3ms-federal-appeals-court-win-impacts-multinational-taxes/

9.      https://en.tpcgroup-int.com/news/impact-of-the-3m-company-case-on-transfer-pricing-regulation/ 

10.   https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/blocking-the-blocked-income-rules-loper-bright-influence-over-the-eighth-circuits-3m-decision

11.    https://molawyersmedia.com/2025/10/20/irs-royalty-reallocation-3m-8th-circuit-ruling/

12.   https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/23-3772/23-3772-2025-10-01.html

13.   https://global-tp.com/a-shift-in-the-irss-powers-to-make-transfer-pricing-adjustments/

14.   https://www.taxcontroversy360.com/2025/10/3m-co-v-commissioner-irs-shipwrecks-hard-on-the-shoals-of-loper-bright/

15.    https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/10/233772P.pdf

16.   https://www.pyapc.com/insights/a-grammar-lesson-in-tax-law-the-8th-circuits-reversal-of-the-tax-court-in-3m/

17.    https://www.indeed.com/q-transfer-pricing-jobs.html

18.   https://www.ziprecruiter.com/t/Most-Popular-Types-Of-Transfer-Pricing-Jobs

19.   https://snaphunt.com/resources/job-descriptions/transfer-pricing-specialist-job-description

20.  https://wowremoteteams.com/blog/job-titles-in-marketing/

21.   https://www.kpmguscareers.com/jobdetail/?jobId=121147

22.   https://www.etaxjobs.com/browse-jobs/transfer-pricing-jobs/

23.   https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/transfer-pricing-manager-jobs

24.  https://yardstick.team/job-description/transfer-pricing-specialist

https://online-distance.ncsu.edu/career/pricing-manager/

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Tax Court Rules Civil Fraud Penalties Continue Within Its Jurisdiction Even After Supreme Court’s Jarkesy Decision

The U.S. Tax Court recently declined to dismiss civil fraud penalties assessed against a partnership accused of vastly overvaluing a conservation easement deduction, ruling that the penalties can be adjudicated without a jury trial. The case, Silver Moss Properties, LLC v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. No. 3 (2025), reaffirmed that the Internal Revenue Service has authority to pursue penalties under IRC §6663(a) within the Tax Court system despite arguments based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117 (2024).

Court’s Reasoning

The partnership, Silver Moss Properties, LLC, argued that Jarkesy established that agencies cannot adjudicate fraud penalties without offering a right to a jury trial, as such penalties resemble common law fraud claims. The Tax Court disagreed, emphasizing two key legal principles:

·         Sovereign immunity: The United States cannot be sued without its consent, and Congress’s limited waiver of immunity allowing TEFRA partnership-level litigation does not include jury trials. As the court noted, neither the Tax Court nor the Court of Federal Claims has statutory authority to empanel juries.

·         Public rights doctrine: The court found that §6663(a) civil fraud penalties fall within the public rights exception because they address fraud against the federal government, not private individuals. In contrast to Jarkesy, where the SEC sought civil penalties akin to private fraud, tax fraud penalties are tools of revenue enforcement, properly handled within administrative and Article I courts.

Implications

This decision confirms that civil fraud penalties for conservation easement overvaluation can proceed entirely within the Tax Court, even after Jarkesy. It suggests that the Supreme Court’s limits on administrative enforcement in securities law do not extend to IRS-imposed civil tax penalties. The ruling preserves the longstanding understanding that no jury trial right exists in Tax Court proceedings, a principle grounded both in sovereign immunity and congressional intent.

 Have an IRS Tax Problem?


     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 


for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or 
Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)




Sources:

1.       https://www.millerchevalier.com/publication/no-jury-trial-civil-tax-penalties-tax-court-declines-extend-jarkesy 

2.      https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2025/8/21/tax-court-upholds-administrative-adjudication-of-civil-tax-fraud-penalties   

3.      https://www.meadowscollier.com/irs-faces-jarkesy-fallout-tax-penalties-under-constitutional-scrutiny 

4.      https://taxaid.com/criminal-tax-law/tax-court-rejects-jury-trial-for-conservation-easement-fraud-penalties/

5.       https://www.law360.com/articles/2400013/tax-court-says-easement-fraud-penalties-don-t-require-jury

6.      https://www.law360.com/tax/news?about=tax&amp%3Bpage=2&page=1

7.       https://www.law360.com/about/tax

8.      https://www.law360.com/insurance

9.      https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-international/tax-court-again-holds-irs-penalties-dont-require-jury-trials

10.   https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2025/9/23/tax-court-again-not-impressed-with-a-syndicated-conservation-easement-transaction

11.    https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2025/8/21/tax-court-upholds-administrative-adjudication-of-civil-tax-fraud-penalties

12.   https://taxaid.com/criminal-tax-law/tax-court-rejects-jury-trial-for-conservation-easement-fraud-penalties/

13.   https://www.law360.com/articles/2379857/tax-court-says-civil-fraud-penalty-cases-don-t-require-juries

14.   https://www.vitallaw.com/news/llc-not-entitled-to-jury-trial-in-civil-fraud-proceeding-court-retains-jurisdiction-to-adjudicate-penalty-silver-moss-properties-llc-tc/ftd01acf3ebbc49cb41be8aac79d524b0eeb0

15.    https://www.millerchevalier.com/publication/no-jury-trial-civil-tax-penalties-tax-court-declines-extend-jarkesy

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/65b5d84d3cd82457c68a7aeb

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Dual Citizen Must Ordered to Pay $5.3M FBAR Penalty

According to Law360, a dual citizen Individual was ordered to pay $5.3 million in penalties and interest for willful failure to report a Swiss bank account, according to a judgment a New York federal judge issued on January 31, 2024.

U.S. District Judge granted the government's motion for default judgment against Vladimir Mrvic, which the U.S. government said it filed after Mrvic failed to respond to repeated attempts to contact him. 


The Internal Revenue Service In 2019 Assessed A Penalty Of
$4.1 Million, Half The Amount In The Account In 2012, A Year For Which He Failed To Report, According To Court Documents.

As of late September, Mrvic owed $5.3 million, including $161,500 in interest and $969,000 in nonpayment penalties, the government said.

Mrvic opened an account with Swiss bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. in 2005 on behalf of Beaucastel Management Corp., of which he was the beneficial owner, according to court documents.

Two years after the Julius Baer account's value peaked at $11.77 million in September 2007, the Swiss bank informed Beaucastel that it needed an IRS W-9 form on file, the government said.

Rather than provide that information, the government said, Mrvic closed Beaucastel's account at Julius Baer and then transferred $5.47 million to another Swiss bank, Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild SA. He used the funds for an "extravagant lifestyle," including purchases of condos and villas in St. Marten and Hong Kong, according to the government.

Mrvic indicated on his 2011 tax year forms that he had a foreign account, but he said he didn't need to file a form reporting it because it totaled less than $10,000, according to court documents. Mrvic deliberately misled authorities on this point, the government said.

 Do You Have Undeclared Offshore Income?

 
Want to Know if the OVDP Program is Right for You? 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini & Associates, P.A.   
for a FREE Tax Consultation contact us at:
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243




Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help