Brickell: A Tax-Appeal Timeliness Dispute Required an Evidentiary Hearing

A disputed notice record required evidence before dismissal

In 27 Entrepreneurs Brickell LLC v. Florida Department of Revenue, No. 1D2024-2105 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 7, 2026), the court reversed final agency orders dismissing tax-hearing petitions as untimely. The Department had taken no evidence establishing when the assessment notice was transmitted or received, even though those facts were disputed.

The court ordered an evidentiary hearing. It did not hold that Brickell’s petitions were timely, excuse every late filing, or decide the tax assessment’s merits. That distinction is the core of the official three-page opinion: A deadline dispute may require factual adjudication before an agency can close the door.

What was known—and what remained an allegation

The notice of proposed assessment bore a November 26, 2019 date and described a 60-day period running from the assessment’s finality. Brickell alleged in its hearing petitions that it first received only one page of the notice from a collector in March 2020 and did not obtain a complete copy until April 2022. The agency dismissed the petitions with prejudice nearly two years after they were initially filed.

Those receipt dates were allegations requiring examination, rather than appellate findings establishing what happened. Because no hearing had occurred, the record contained neither testimony nor other evidence establishing the date of transmission or mailing. That absence mattered because the agency’s conclusion depended on a deadline it treated as having expired. Brickell, pages 1–2.

The agency had to provide a clear opportunity to enter the process

The First District relied on Florida administrative law requiring a clear point of entry: A recognizable event and specified period through which an affected party can obtain formal or informal proceedings. The court also emphasized that waiver must be clearly demonstrated by the agency seeking to rely on it.

The Department had described the hearing deadline as jurisdictional and reasoned that missing it barred the challenge. The appellate court did not treat that label as a substitute for deciding the disputed facts. When the validity of a dismissal depends on when the notice issued, what was received, and whether tolling occurred, those matters need an evidentiary record.

The court applied Florida Statutes section 120.68(7)(a) and directed further proceedings under sections 120.569 and 120.57. Its cited earlier cases supplied the administrative point-of-entry and timeliness framework. The opinion’s holding concerns the need to resolve facts within that framework, not the creation of a new universal tax deadline.

The remand reopened the timeliness question, not necessarily the tax merits

The disposition was reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Brickell still had to establish the facts relevant to its petitions. The Department could present mailing, transmission, receipt, and other relevant evidence. The hearing would determine whether the taxpayer received a valid opportunity to challenge the assessment and whether the petitions were timely under the applicable rules.

A remand therefore offered a procedural opportunity without guaranteeing a merits hearing or a lower tax liability. A taxpayer who wins this kind of appeal should be prepared to prove the contested notice facts rather than assume that the appellate reversal itself established them.

The practical value lies in connecting documents to the deadline

A dated assessment identifies one event. An envelope, mailing record, portal entry, or complete notice may establish another. A petition filing receipt establishes when a challenge was submitted. The relevant legal rule determines how those events interact; they are not interchangeable merely because each carries a date.

The receipt of a partial notice particularly calls for precision. Which page was received? Did it contain appeal instructions or identify the assessment? How and when did the remaining pages arrive? A party should preserve the document as received and explain the transmission history through admissible evidence.

Our notice-receipt preparation guide focuses on those practical questions. The legal holding here is from Florida. It does not govern IRS or California FTB appeal periods, and it should not be used to postpone a filing while someone looks for delivery records. A tax-dispute review must identify the actual jurisdiction, notice type, filing route, and deadline before deciding how to preserve the challenge.