Opinion ID: 1931608
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Refund Remedies

Text: The only statutory provisions that we are aware of, which could possibly authorize a refund of the kind of fees or taxes in this case are Md.Code (1988, 1997 Repl.Vol., 2001 Supp.) § 13-901(a)(2) of the Tax-General Article governing refunds in respect to the State and Md.Code (1957, 2001 Repl.Vol.) Art. 24, § 9-710, et seq. governing revenue and taxes and providing remedies for refunds of county and municipal fees, taxes and charges. Section 13-901(a)(2) of the Tax-General Article authorizes a refund claim against the State by a claimant who pays to the State a tax, fee, charge, interest, or penalty that is erroneously, illegally, or wrongfully assessed or collected in any manner. Section 9-710(2) of Article 24 similarly authorizes an administrative refund claim by a claimant who pays to a county or municipal corporation a tax, fee, charge, interest, or penalty that is erroneously, illegally, or wrongfully assessed or collected in any manner. A refund might have been appropriate if the tax court deemed the fees paid to be an illegal tax, fee or governmental charge, one of the same arguments petitioners now assert. In Apostol v. Anne Arundel County, 288 Md. 667, 672, 421 A.2d 582, 585 (1980) we stated: It is firmly established in this State that once a taxpayer voluntarily pays a tax or other governmental charge, under a mistake of law or under what he regards as an illegal imposition, no common law action lies for the recovery of the tax absent a special statutory provision sanctioning a refund. This is true even if payment is made under protest. Moreover, in these circumstances, no common law or declaratory judgment action lies to challenge the validity of a tax so paid. Where there is a special statutory provision sanctioning a refund... that remedy is exclusive. [Emphasis added.] [19] Title 13 of the Tax-General Article applicable to the State provides the procedure to be used by a claimant seeking a State refund. Section 13-903 states that A claim for a refund shall be filed within the time required under § 13-1104 of this title. Section 13-1104(a) provides in respect to State taxes  In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a claim for a refund under this article maybe not be filed after 3 years from the date the tax, interest, or penalty was paid. Title 13 then states:  § 13-510. Appeal to Tax Court. (a) In general. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and subject to § 13-514 of this subtitle, within 30 days after the date on which a notice is mailed, a person or governmental unit that is aggrieved by the action in the notice may appeal to the Tax Court from: (1) a final assessment of tax, interest, or penalty under this article ... Following a final order of the Tax Court, if dissatisfied, a petitioner can then seek judicial review. The relevant portions of Section 13-532 state: (a) In general. (1) A final order of the Tax Court is subject to judicial review as provided for contested cases in §§ 10-222 and 10-223 of the State Government Article. (2) Any party to the Tax Court proceeding, including a governmental unit, may appeal a final order of the Tax Court to the circuit court. The provisions of Md.Code, Article 24 applicable to counties and municipal subdivisions almost mirror the provisions of the Tax-General Article regarding the procedure for making a claim for a refund from the State and seeking judicial review of the determination of such a claim. Article 24, § 9-712, calls for an investigation and hearing by the appropriate tax collector and § 9-712(d) reads  Appeal. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, within 30 days after the date on which a notice is mailed, a person who is aggrieved by the action in the notice may appeal to the Maryland Tax Court in the manner allowed in Title 13, Subtitle 5, Parts IV and V of the Tax-General Article. (2) If a tax collector does not make a determination on a claim for a refund within 6 months after the claim is filed, the claimant may: (i) Consider the claim as being disallowed; and (ii) Appeal the disallowance to the Tax Court. Article 24, § 9-724 states that A claim for a refund under this title may not be filed after 3 years from the date the tax, interest, or penalty was paid. Petitioners have not availed themselves of the statutory remedy provided. An Article 24 refund claim and a denial of that claim by the collectors would have met the requirements permitting petitioners to appeal, and to have their claims decided by the tax court and then, potentially, reviewed by the circuit court, and then, if necessary, appealed to the appellate courts. Petitioners did not elect to use the statutory remedies available to them when they first executed the now allegedly illegal school waiver agreements with respondent.