FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3284

_____________________________

SEI FUEL SERVICES INC.,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

REVENUE,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Department of Revenue.

Andrea Moreland, Deputy Executive Director.

February 14, 2024

OSTERHAUS, C.J.

Appellant SEI Fuel Services, Inc. appeals the Department of 

Revenue’s final order denying its request for a partial refund of 

double-paid motor fuel taxes. The Department concluded that 

§ 206.414(3), Florida Statutes, barred it from refunding either of 

Appellant’s overpayments. We disagree and reverse.

I.

Sometime between 2011 and 2014, Appellant, a supplier of 

motor fuel to 7-Eleven stores, purchased a certain amount of fuel 
2

from its upstream supplier, Sunshine Gasoline Distributors, Inc. 

Florida law requires the payment of a fuel tax on the purchase or 

sale of such motor fuel. See § 206.41, Fla. Stat. Appellant owed 

$3,179,675.11 in motor fuel taxes on these purchases. Appellant 

paid the tax amount directly to its supplier, Sunshine, who then 

remitted the payment to the Department. Sometime later, 

Appellant paid the same fuel tax in the same dollar amount

directly to the Department. The Department subsequently audited

Appellant’s fuel tax payments and the parties discovered the 

double-payment. The parties agree that Appellant paid its 

$3,179,675.11 tax bill twice to the Department through different 

channels. 

After the audit, Appellant filed a request to get its direct 

payment to the Department back. The Department denied it.

Appellant contested this denial pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida 

Statutes. But an administrative law judge found no disputed 

issues of material fact and relinquished jurisdiction back to the 

Department for proceedings before a hearing officer. In arguments 

before the hearing officer, Appellant asserted entitlement to a 

refund of the second payment made directly to the Department. 

Appellant acknowledged that it was statutorily barred from 

getting a refund for the first tax payment made through Sunshine.

Appellant argued, however, that the second payment made 

directly to the Department was an overpayment made in error for 

purposes of § 215.26. The hearing officer ultimately upheld the 

Department’s denial of Appellant’s refund request and Appellant 

then appealed.

II.

An agency’s interpretations of law are reviewed de novo, 

whereas its findings of fact are reviewed for competent, substantial 

evidence. 1701 Collins Mia. Owner, LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue, 321 

So. 3d 875, 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). A reviewing court may not 

defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute. Art. V, § 21, Fla. 

Const. The taxpayer has the burden of proving by a preponderance 

of the evidence that it is entitled to a refund. 1701 Collins, 321 So. 

3d at 880. 
3

Section 206.41 sets forth the taxes payable on sales of motor 

fuel. This section specifies that, generally, motor fuel taxes are 

imposed on the “removal of motor fuel in this state from a terminal 

if the motor fuel is removed at the rack.” § 206.41(6)(a), Fla. Stat.

But, relevant here, § 206.414 requires a different collection 

methodology for fuel taxes imposed under § 206.41(1)(d), (e), and 

(f) that are above the annual minimum tax. These taxes above the 

annual minimum must be collected and remitted directly by 

purchasing suppliers like Appellant upon selling, delivering, or 

consigning fuel to their customers. § 206.414(2)-(3), Fla. Stat. 

Where a midstream supplier like Appellant fails to follow this 

directive and pays the taxes to an upstream supplier then “no”

refunds are available for the above-the-annual-minimum taxes 

imposed under § 206.41(1)(d), (e), and (f) paid to the supplier.

§ 206.414(3), Fla. Stat.

In this case, the parties don’t dispute that the motor fuel taxes 

applicable here fall within § 206.414’s requirement for payment 

directly by Appellant to the Department. This meant Appellant’s

first tax payment through Sunshine was not made via a lawful 

channel. But the Department nonetheless received and accepted 

the tax payment made through Appellant’s supplier. According to 

§ 206.414(3), Appellant couldn’t now receive a refund for this tax 

payment made through Sunshine. And Appellant concedes as 

much. 

What Appellant asserts is that its subsequent second payment 

of the same tax, made directly to the Department this time,

remains eligible to be refunded because it wasn’t made through a 

channel for which refunds are prohibited. Section 206.13 allows 

taxpayers to seek a refund for erroneously paid motor fuel taxes 

under § 215.26, which provides for refunds for overpaid taxes, 

payments made where no tax is due, or other payment errors. 

§ 215.26(1), Fla. Stat. Here, Appellant made some combination of 

these mistakes and ended up paying its tax bill twice resulting in 

a more than $3 million overpayment to the Department.

The Department counters that it can keep both of Appellant’s 

payments because the first payment came through an unlawful 

channel and only the direct payment properly remitted the tax 

due. We do not agree, however, that the Department’s receipt and 
4

acceptance of the first non-refundable payment also prohibits 

Appellant from obtaining a refund of the subsequent direct 

payment of the same tax that resulted in double payment. The 

Department acknowledges that Appellant made two full payments 

corresponding to the very same tax invoice. The Department 

received both payments, taking in double what it was owed. 

Appellant’s first tax payment through its supplier satisfied the 

required tax. Thus, as Appellant asserts, the later payment is 

eligible to be refunded under § 215.26(1) as an overpayment or 

other error in paying an already-paid tax. See Dep’t of Revenue v. 

Kemper Invs. Life Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 1124, 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 

1995) (“[W]e are of the view that the tax laws contain ample 

provisions for penalties and interest for taxpayer's errors and 

omissions, and it is not the province of the Department to create 

additional penalties and forfeitures for the taxpayer, or windfalls 

for the state.”). Since the second payment was made directly, and 

nothing bars refunds for direct tax payments mistakenly made to 

the Department, Appellant should not have been disqualified 

under § 206.414(3) from receiving a refund of the $3,179,675.11

payment made directly to the Department.

We therefore REVERSE and REMAND for the issuance of a 

refund of Appellant’s direct payment because no tax remained due 

in addition to the full payment made through Appellant’s supplier.

ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael J. Bowen and Aleksas A. Barauskas, of Akerman LLP, 

Jacksonville; Kristen M. Fiore of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, for

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Timothy E. Dennis, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, and Christopher Baisden, Office of 
5

the Attorney General, Revenue Litigation Bureau, and Mark S. 

Hamilton, Florida Department of Revenue, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.