FORM 1 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE OPINIONS

The following are summaries of opinions of the Commission on Ethics (CEOs), organized by the form section to which they relate. You may find these helpful in deciding whether you have to report something, and if so, how to report it. CEOs are binding only on the person who requested them—they are not laws or rules. Keep in mind that the laws have changed over time, so, particular reporting thresholds, calculations, form numbers, or statutes referred to in the opinions may have changed. If you have any questions about your particular circumstances, please call us at (850) 488-7864. We will be happy to help!



DISCLOSURE PERIOD

In CEO 82-72, the Commission advised the requestor, a municipal candidate, that the financial disclosure period for candidates and public officers was the taxable year ending on December 31, as set forth in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. An incumbent should file, at the time of qualifying, a disclosure form reflecting financial interests for the year preceding the election year.
CEO 82-72

In CEO 76-131, the Commission advised the requestor that the "disclosure period," as defined in Section 112.312, Florida Statutes, is the taxable year, whether based on a calendar or fiscal year, immediately preceding the first day of the period during which the requestor's financial disclosure statement is required to be filed. [Filing is now required by July 1, rather than July 15, following each calendar year in which a filer holds a position or employment.]
CEO 76-131

In CEO 75-186, the Commission advised the requestor that, within 30 days from the date of appointment, an appointed public officer must file a form disclosing financial interests for the previous tax year. Thereafter, the filer is not required to file again for that same tax year.
CEO 75-186

In CEO 74-33, the Commission advised the requestor that CE Form 1 filers were required to disclose assets held during the disclosure period, January 1 through December 31, immediately preceding the date on which the disclosure form is to be filed, rather than assets held at the time of filing the form 1.
CEO 74-33

MANNER OF CALCULATING REPORTABLE INTERESTS

PART A – PRIMARY SOURCES OF INCOME

In CEO 83-88, the Commission advised an elected constitutional officer who had been given a cruise, by a cruise company as a quid pro quo for services rendered by his tour businesses, to disclose the cruise company as a source of income, with the value of the cruise being the advertised cost to the general public. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 83-88

In CEO 77-44, the Commission advised the requestor that "gross income" would have the meaning contained in the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C.A. s. 61(a), which deemed gross income to mean "all income from whatever source derived." The Commission also said that although any public salary received by the reporting person is excluded from disclosure, it should be included in the computation of the reporting person's gross income.
CEO 77-44

In CEO 75-19, the Commission advised the requestor that she was not required to disclose income belonging solely to her spouse.
CEO 75-19

PART B – SECONDARY SOURCES OF INCOME

In CEO 85-70, the Commission advised a state representative who owned interests in two insurance servicing and consulting companies which provided services for trade associations and employer groups, to disclose the name of each association and employer providing income to each of his companies, if the reporting thresholds were met. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis also may be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 85-70

In CEO 80-64, the Commission advised the requestor, an attorney, that he was required to disclose the name, address, and a description of the principal business activity of any client which provided income to the firm, where the reporting thresholds were met.
CEO 80-64

In CEO 76-164, the Commission advised the requestor that he was required to disclose the name of a client and the name of an estate, if the fees they paid to the requestor's law firm exceeded the reporting thresholds and he met the required ownership and income thresholds.
CEO 76-164

In CEO 75-88, the Commission advised the requestor that as a 50 percent co-beneficiary of an irrevocable real estate investment trust, she was deemed to own a "material interest" in a "business entity," as those terms are defined in Section 112.312, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the Commission said she must disclose the source of all gross income of the trust if the required thresholds were met.
CEO 75-88

In CEO 75-98 the Commission advised the requestor that for purposes of financial disclosure, the term "gross income" has the same meaning as for purposes of federal income taxation. It further advised that the term "source" is defined in Section 112.312, Florida Statutes, as "the name, address and description of the principal business activity of a business entity." Therefore, the Commission said, the phrase "source of business entity's income," as required to be disclosed on CE Form 1, would include the name, address, and principal business activity of any business customer. It said the description of the principal business activity of the customer should include an indication of the type of business in which the customer is engaged, if the customer is a business entity; otherwise the description column should be marked "not applicable." [Note: the language of the definition was later changed to, "the name, address and description of the principal business activity of a person or business entity."]
CEO 75-98

PART C – REAL PROPERTY

In CEO 82-30, the Commission advised the requestor that assuming that property owned by two constitutional officers met the thresholds for financial disclosure reporting, property they owned together as tenants by the entirety should be reported by each official at its full value. It advised that property otherwise owned together should be reported at its proportionate value, except for joint bank accounts where each was authorized to withdraw the full amount, in which case the full value of the account should be disclosed. The Commission advised that property owned by one spouse separately of the other should be disclosed only on the form of the official who owned that property, and that explanatory notes to clarify would be appropriate. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis also may be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 82-30

In CEO 75-19, the Commission advised the requestor that assets held in the entirety by her and her spouse should be included at full value in the financial disclosure statement.
CEO 75-19

PART D – INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY

In CEO 14-18, the Commission advised the requestor that a vehicle lease is an asset and that the value of the lease is the vehicle's present value minus the lease residual. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 14-18

In CEO 12-10, the Commission advised that cash held in financial institutions should be identified by the type of account and the name of the institution. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 12-10

In CEO 11-11, the Commission advised the requestor that individual investment products held in Individual Retirement Accounts, 401(k)s, the Florida Retirement Investment Plan, the Florida Deferred Compensation Plan, and the Florida College Prepaid Investment Plan should be reported as intangible personal property, if their value exceeds the reporting threshold selected by the filer. It advised that funds held in the Florida Prepaid College Plan and Deferred Option Retirement Accounts should be reported as intangible personal property, if their value exceeds the reporting threshold selected by the filer.
CEO 11-11

In CEO 82-30, the Commission advised the requestor that assuming that property owned by two constitutional officers met the thresholds for financial disclosure reporting, property owned together as tenants by the entirety should be reported by each official at its full value. It advised that property otherwise owned together should be reported at its proportionate value, except for joint bank accounts where each is authorized to withdraw the full amount, in which case the full value of the account should be disclosed. The Commission advised that property owned by one spouse separately of the other should be disclosed only on the form of the official who owns that property, and that explanatory notes to clarify would be appropriate. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis also may be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 82-30

In CEO 78-37, the Commission advised the requestor that the cash surrender value of an insurance policy on the official's life, which policy was wholly owned by the official's spouse, was not deemed to constitute an asset personally held by the official in the absence of an adjudication by a court that he had a legally recognized property interest in such policy. Accordingly, the Commission advised the official that the cash surrender value of the policy need not be disclosed as an asset even though the official made the premium payments. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 78-37

In CEO 78-37, the Commission also advised the requestor that savings accounts he maintained in his own name, and from which he was authorized to make withdrawals, constituted assets of the official, even though the accounts were established in trust for his children. The Commission said that because the trust was tentative and revocable at will by the depositor, it was deemed to constitute an asset belonging to him. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 78-37

In CEO 76-129, the Commission advised the requestor that when he owned a savings account jointly with his wife and had control over the entire amount and had the right of survivorship, he owned the entire savings account for purposes of the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, the Commission advised him to use the full amount of the savings account in calculating reporting thresholds.
CEO 76-129

In CEO 75-19, the Commission advised the requestor she need not disclose income belonging solely to her spouse. However, it advised that jointly held properties should be included in computing her gross income, and assets held in the entirety by her and her spouse should be included at full value.
CEO 75-19

In CEO 74-2, the Commission advised the requestor that jointly held property is an asset and must be included in the computation of total assets. The amount to be included in the gross computation should be the percentage of value of the jointly held property equal to the percentage of the officer's joint ownership.
CEO 74-2

PART E – LIABILITIES

In CEO 14-18, the Commission advised the requestor that a vehicle lease was a liability and that the value of the liability was the total amount of the outstanding obligation owed to the lessor, including past-due and future payments. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 14-18

In CEO 95-1, the Commission advised the requestor that he was not required to disclose his proportionate share of indebtedness under a promissory note executed by him in his capacity as a general partner. The Commission reasoned that while under the Uniform Partnership Act, general partners are jointly liable for contractual debts and obligations of the partnership, such liability appeared to be contingent upon a creditor first exhausting the assets of the partnership, and "contingent" liabilities are not required to be reported. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 95-1

In CEO 89-5, the Commission advised the requestor that where he had signed a note and was jointly and severally liable for the balance, he must disclose the note on his financial disclosure forms, even though the loan proceeds were used and the loan was repaid by a partnership in which he had no interest. The Commission further advised the requestor that the amount of the liability reported where liability is joint and several should be equal to the total amount due on the note. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 89-5

In CEO 84-100, the Commission advised the requestor that he was not required to disclose tax liens filed by the IRS, because the definition of "liability" in Section 112.312, Florida Statutes, excluded taxes owed. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers. Note: the definition of "liability," later changed to state, "taxes owed unless reduced to a judgment."]
CEO 84-100

PART F – INTERESTS IN SPECIFIED BUSINESSES

In CEO 85-70, the Commission advised a state representative who owned interests in two insurance servicing and consulting companies which provided services for trade associations and employer groups that he should report those companies. [This opinion involved a CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. However, the analysis may also be useful for Form 1 filers.]
CEO 85-70

In CEO 77-86A, the requestors held material interests in a company serving as a local agent for several title insurance companies—performing as a title insurance agency and writing title insurance policies for several insurance companies. The Commission advised that the requestors should disclose such ownership. [Note: the Form 3 referenced in the opinion is no longer in use. CE Form 1 filers disclose Interests in Specified Businesses on Form 1.]
CEO 77-86A