NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 308 Ga. 729

In 2010 four AT&T Mobility subsidiaries (collectively “AT&T”) sought refunds from the Georgia Department of Revenue for sales and use taxes they had collected from customers and remitted to the State.
The Department denied the claims in 2015; AT&T sued in DeKalb County Superior Court to compel refunds.
The trial court dismissed the complaint on three grounds: a Department regulation required dealers to refund customers before seeking a refund from the State; AT&T lacked standing to recover for periods before May 5, 2009 (the effective date of statutory amendments allowing dealers to seek refunds on behalf of customers); and the claims were a barred class action.
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal based on the regulation; the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed that regulatory holding (New Cingular II), and remanded to consider the standing and class-action issues.
On remand the Court of Appeals held AT&T lacked standing for pre‑May 5, 2009 periods (New Cingular III); AT&T petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court again on the standing question.
The Georgia Supreme Court held the 2009 amendment merely granted representational (procedural) standing to dealers and could be applied retroactively, reversed the Court of Appeals in part, and remanded. The three‑year statute of limitations under OCGA § 48‑2‑35(c) still applies to pre‑amendment claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dealers (AT&T) have standing to seek refunds for periods before May 5, 2009	The 2009 amendment grants representational standing (procedural mechanism) allowing dealers to file on behalf of customers, so it may be applied retroactively	The amendment created a new substantive right in dealers to sue as "taxpayers," so it cannot be applied retroactively; pre‑amendment dealers lacked standing (citing Sawnee)	The amendment confers representational/ procedural standing, not a substantive right; it may be applied retroactively. Court of Appeals erred; reversed in part and remanded.
Whether the Department regulation required dealers to refund customers before seeking a refund from the Department	AT&T: regulation does not require prior refund to customers before filing with the Department	Dept: regulation requires dealers to refund customers first	Georgia Supreme Court previously held (New Cingular II) that the regulation, properly construed, does not require dealers to refund customers before applying for a refund.
Whether AT&T’s claims were barred as a class action	AT&T: claims permissible under refund statutes and procedural rules	Dept: plaintiffs’ claims amounted to a barred class action	Court of Appeals reversed trial court on class‑action ground; Dept did not seek further review, so that ruling stands (not at issue here).

New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Ga. Dept. of Revenue, 303 Ga. 468 (Ga. 2018) (Georgia Supreme Court’s prior opinion holding the regulation does not require dealers to refund before applying for refund)
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Ga. Dept. of Revenue, 348 Ga. App. 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019) (Court of Appeals decision holding AT&T lacked standing for pre‑2009 periods)
Sawnee Elec. Membership Corp. v. Ga. Dept. of Revenue, 279 Ga. 22 (Ga. 2005) (holding an entity without statutory taxpayer status could not assert associational standing in a tax refund action)
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, 517 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1996) (discussing representational/associational standing and relationships that permit asserting third‑party rights)
Aldridge v. Ga. Hospitality & Travel Assn., 251 Ga. 234 (Ga. 1983) (discussing associational standing under Georgia law)
Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., 283 Ga. 271 (Ga. 2008) (treating certain statutory amendments as procedural and thus retroactive)