Opinion ID: 1621475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Future Claims

Text: In order to avoid the recurrence of this issue in similar situations in the future, [5] we expressly hold that a Florida taxpayer may file directly in the appropriate court without filing an administrative claim pursuant to section 215.26 if the sole basis claimed for the refund is that the tax is unconstitutional. We recognize that the Comptroller cannot declare a tax unconstitutional, and thus, when the claim is solely that the refund is required because the tax is unconstitutional, to file the claim with the Comptroller would be a futile act. [6] The claim based solely upon the constitutionality of the tax must be commenced by filing in the appropriate court [7] within the time requirements set forth in section 215.26(2), that is, within 3 years after the right to refund has accrued. Our holding in Kuhnlein did not eliminate the need to comply with the time requirements in section 215.26. Instead, we merely found that meeting the administrative requirements of section 215.26 was unnecessary. 646 So.2d at 720. Therefore, we now explicitly hold that a plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of a tax statute and seeking a refund, while not required to file with the Comptroller, must still file suit within three years of payment as required by section 215.26(2). [8] We recognize that our holding appears to conflict with section 215.26(4), which provides that the statute is the exclusive procedure and remedy for refund claims between individual funds and accounts in the State Treasury. However, we find no inconsistency because the statute is only the exclusive remedy for tax refunds which the Comptroller is actually empowered to make, such as refunds for overpayment, section 215.26(1)(a); when no tax is due, section 215.26(1)(b); or for payments made in error, section 215.26(1)(c); but not for taxes that might violate the constitution.