Opinion ID: 2510273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Oklahoma Uniform Tax Procedures Act

Text: ¶ 5 As to the district court's jurisdiction, the district court denied Dell's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The crux of Dell's motion was that the plaintiffs' claims are a transparent attempt to generate a class action suit when in reality the plaintiffs are seeking a tax refund which must first be addressed by the Oklahoma Tax Commission. Dell submitted that the district court should have dismissed the petition because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. ¶ 6 Section 227 of title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes provides a mechanism for a refund of taxes erroneously paid. Section 225 provides the means for appeals for denial of a refund. Section 202 defines a taxpayer as any person liable to pay any state tax. If the plaintiffs' claims are for a refund of the sales tax collected either by mistake of fact, error in computation or misinterpretation of law, the plaintiffs would have to first seek relief with the Oklahoma Tax Commission pursuant to these sections. See Stallings v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 1994 OK 99, 880 P.2d 912. ¶ 7 The plaintiffs protested Dell's characterization of their claims. The plaintiffs emphasized that their position was Dell charges and collects from Oklahoma residents monies falsely characterized as a sales tax on the purchase of optional service contracts, and/or on transportation charges ( i.e., shipping and handling charges) for the delivery of computers and computer products. We confine our review to the issues based on plaintiffs characterization of the claims. Thus, proof that the sales taxes were remitted to the Oklahoma Tax Commission as Dell alleges would be a defense to the plaintiffs' claims as the plaintiffs have limited them.