Playmates Toys Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 742 A.2d 968 (N.J. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Playmates Toys Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 742 A.2d 968 (N.J. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lenox, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation (njtaxct, 2002-12-04)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Lenox, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
N.J. Tax Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lockwood v. Walsh, 137 N.J.Eq. 445, 450, 45 A.2d 305 (Prerog.Ct.1946) (implying that State Tax Commissioner possesses inherent authority to correct error of mathematical calculation). [Id. at 187, 742 A.2d 968 .] Plaintiff contends that, in relying on Lockwood v. Walsh, the Supreme Court established a standard for distinguishing between clerical errors and errors in judgment which bars recovery of the refund monies issued to plaintiff.
discussed Cited "see" State v. International Federation of Professional & Engineers, Local 195 (2×)
N.J. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Playmates Toys, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 162 N.J. 186 , 742 A.2d 968 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" State v. INTERN. FED., LOCAL (2×)
N.J. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Playmates Toys, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 162 N.J. 186 , 742 A. 2d 968 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" Quigley v. KPMG PEAT MARWICK, LIP (2×)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: accord · confidence high
Generally, waiver is defined "as the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known and existing right." 13 Williston on Contracts § 39:14 (Lord ed.2000) (emphasis added); accord Playmates Toys, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Tax., 316 N.J.Super. 509, 512 , 720 A. 2d 655 (App.Div.1998), aff'd, 162 N.J. 186 , 742 A. 2d 968 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Playmates Toys Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Director, Division of Taxation, Defendant-Respondent
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Dec 21, 1999.
742 A.2d 968
Michael A. Guariglia, argued the cause for appellant (McCarter & English, attorneys; Mr. Guariglia and Margaret C. Wilson, on the briefs)., Marlene G. Brown, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent {John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Joseph L. Yannott% Former Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).
Per Curiam.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division allowing the Director of the Division of Taxation to recover a refund mistakenly paid to a taxpayer after the statute of limitations had passed on the taxpayer’s right to seek a refund for overpayments in prior years. We do so substantially for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division in its opinion reported at 316 N.J.Super. 509, 720 A.2d 655 (1998). We add only that this judgment does not confer on the Division of Taxation an unlimited inherent authority to correct and revise erroneous tax determinations once made. The powers of the Division are not boundless. Rather, given the administrative history of the Division’s earlier determination (communicated to the taxpayer) that the taxpayer was not entitled to a refund because of the statute of limitations, the recovery of the funds here is more akin to the correction of a clerical error that led to the mailing of a tax refund check to which the taxpayer was not entitled, rather than the correction of an error in judgment. See Lockwood v. Walsh, 137 N.J. Eq. 445, 450, 45 A.2d 305 (Prerog.Ct.1946) (implying that State Tax Commissioner possesses inherent authority to correct error of mathematical calculation).

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG and YERNIERO—

7.

Opposed — none.