Court Opinion

ID: 9736336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:52:54.295108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:02.115913
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Judge Kramer
(Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part) :
I concur with the majority in affirming the lower court holding that the occupation taxes in question must be refunded to the appellee. I must dissent, however, on the majority’s remand with directions that interest on the refund should be computed and paid only “from the date of judicial recognition of such refund.”
This writer has fully set forth the reasons why the interest should be paid from the date of the original demand by the taxpayer, in the dissenting opinion filed in the case of Pittsburgh v. Cities Service Oil Company, 2 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 567, 280 A. 2d 463 (1971). Once again, this is not a case where the amount of the *283refund, or the extent of tax liability, is in question, but, rather, whether the taxing authority had any power to collect any of the tax levied and collected. Under such circumstances I would hold that interest must be computed and paid from the date of the demand for refund.