Opinion ID: 2453583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NRS 680B.120 bars the refund requests for taxes paid in 2003 and 2004

Text: The Department asserts that even though NRS 680B.120 allows refunds for erroneous insurance premium tax payments and AHS made erroneous tax payments in 2003 and 2004, AHS is barred from claiming refunds for those years by that statute's one-year limitation period. We agree. NRS Chapter 680B governs fees and taxes for insurance. NRS 680B.120 is entitled Refund of overpayments, and subsection 1 of that statute provides that [a]ny person from whom fees, charges or taxes imposed by this Code have been erroneously collected may apply for refund at any time within 1 year after the date such fees, charges or taxes were originally required to be paid.... Although AHS contends that NRS 680B.120 does not apply to its payments made on exempt service contracts because it governs only taxes imposed that are originally required to be paid, we reject such a hypertechnical interpretation of the statute. Statutes must be construed as a whole, and phrases may not be read in isolation to defeat the purpose behind the statute. See Southern Nev. Homebuilders v. Clark County, 121 Nev. 446, 449, 117 P.3d 171, 173 (2005); Backhus v. Transit Cas. Co., 549 So.2d 283, 291 (La.1989) (noting that hypertechnical interpretations of a statute should be rejected when its plain language leads to a reasonable interpretation consistent with legislative intent). NRS 680B.120(1) clearly governs all requests for refunds of taxes mistakenly paid and collected under the Nevada Insurance Code, regardless of reason for overpayment. Indeed, its very title indicates that it covers all refunds of overpayments, which certainly includes the erroneous payment of taxes on exempt services. See Nevada Power Co. v. Haggerty, 115 Nev. 353, 366, 989 P.2d 870, 878 (1999) (noting that a statute's title can reflect legislative intent). In the context of the federal tax code, the United States Supreme Court has long refused to limit refund statutes based on unrealistically narrow interpretations of the term overpayment, explaining that an overpayment for which a refund may be sought is any payment in excess of that which is properly due, whether [s]uch an excess payment [is] traced to an error in mathematics or in judgment or in interpretation of facts or law. Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., 332 U.S. 524, 531, 68 S.Ct. 229, 92 L.Ed. 142 (1947), quoted in United States v. Fior D'ltalia, Inc., 536 U.S. 238, 259, 122 S.Ct. 2117, 153 L.Ed.2d 280 (2002). An error resulting in overpayment may be committed by the taxpayer or by the revenue agents, but [w]hatever the reason, the payment of more than is rightfully due is what characterizes an overpayment. Jones, 332 U.S. at 531, 68 S.Ct. 229. Relying on Jones, federal courts flatly reject the notion that erroneous payments are not overpayments if the tax was not actually imposed on the activity for which the payment was made. See, e.g., Kreiger v. United States, 539 F.2d 317, 320 (3d Cir.1976). [2] Thus, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the statute, we conclude that NRS 680B.120 applies to any and all overpayments of insurance premium taxes, regardless of whether they were made on exempt services. Recovering erroneously paid taxes requires following statutory procedure if such procedure exists. Washoe County v. Golden Road Motor Inn, 105 Nev. 402, 404, 777 P.2d 358, 359 (1989). Doing so promotes predictability and reduces uncertainty by directing taxpayers to seek a refund under the refund statute applicable to the tax that was erroneously paid. See Visual Comm., 108 Nev. at 725, 836 P.2d at 1247; Golden Road, 105 Nev. at 404, 777 P.2d at 359. Here, a statutory procedure for refunding insurance premium tax overpayments exists, and AHS calculated, reported, and made overpayments of the insurance premium tax under NRS 680B.027. As such, NRS 680B.120 applies to AHS's refund claims. And because AHS made its refund request in 2006, it is barred under NRS 680B.120(1)'s one-year limitation period from seeking a refund for its overpayments made in 2003 and 2004. [3]