TIN, Inc. v. Washington Parish Sheriff's Office
112 So. 3d 197
La.2013Background
- TIN sought refunds for multiple use tax overpayments after the collector failed to act on refund requests for extended periods.
- Second refund request expanded the basis to include NASH and referenced prior DOR board proceedings; collector did not respond.
- Fourth refund request (2005–2007) was denied; TIN timely sought redetermination and filed suit after denial.
- Lower courts held claims 2 and 3 prescribed/perempted and that payment-under-protest was required for certain post-ULSTC claims.
- Louisiana ULSTC and pre-ULSTC remedies (1621/337.77/1625/337.81) govern timelines; the court evaluated whether the collector’s inaction altered applicable time limits.
- Court held that taxpayer was not required to pay under protest where the collector failed to act, and reversed/ remanded for proceedings consistent with this interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether payer must use payment under protest when the collector fails to act | TIN argues no protest payment required when no action taken. | Collector-supported view; precludes refund absent protest remedy after denial/inaction. | No protest payment required when collector fails to act. |
| Effect of inaction on timing for appeals/redetermination under ULSTC-era statutes | Inaction does not trigger 60-day/90-day windows; one-year clock remains open for appeals. | Inaction constitutes denial and triggers specific timing. | Inaction does not impose post-claim deadlines; timing depends on denial, not inaction. |
| Prescriptive/peremptive status of second and third refund requests | Claims were not timely prescribed when collector failed to act. | Second/third requests prescribed/perempted under 47:1625/47:337.81. | Second/third refund claims not prescribed due to collector inaction; remedies stay available. |
| Proper application of 47:1625 and 47:337.81 post-UCSTC timelines | These periods run from filing or denial; inaction does not trigger an expiration. | These periods apply after denial; inaction should constrain timelines. | Timelines do not commence until denial; inaction does not foreclose timely relief. |
| Whether the payment-under-protest framework is the sole remedy for post-claim relief | Payment under protest is not the exclusive remedy when collector fails to act. | Payment under protest remains available where misinterpretation of law is alleged. | Payment under protest is not the sole remedy unless misinterpretation of law is involved and acted upon. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Martin v. State, 25 So.3d 736 (La. 2009) (recognizes three remedies for recovery of illegal tax payments)
- Kean’s Partnership v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 685 So.2d 1043 (La. 1996) (payment under protest as a remedy after denial)
- Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans through Dept. of Finance, 720 So.2d 1186 (La. 1998) (post-denial refunds and protest remedies analyzed)
- Church Point Wholesale Beverage Co., Inc. v. Tarver, 614 So.2d 697 (La. 1993) (refunds without protest when challenged as unconstitutional statute)
- J-W Power v. State, through Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 59 So.3d 1234 (La. 2011) (payment under protest cases in tax remedy context)
- McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1990) (predeprivation and postdeprivation tax relief framework)
- International Paper, Inc. v. Bridges, 972 So.2d 1121 (La. 2008) (raw materials exclusion and processing standards)