refund claim in New Jersey

2026Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed on October 11, 2022.8 In Toys “R” Us v. Dir., Div. of Tax’n, 300 N.J.

2026Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed on October 11, 2022.8 In Toys “R” Us v. Dir., Div. of Tax’n, 300 N.J.

2024Tax 599, 611 (Tax 2009) (citing Lenox, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 19 N.J.

2009Lenox, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 19 N.J.Tax 437 (Tax 2001).

2001Corp. v. Kingsley, supra, 119 N.J.Super. at 108 , 290 A.2d 304 (citations omitted).] It is within the context of the foregoing statutory and regulatory framework that this court must decide the three issues now before it, namely: 1) whether the changes in income which plaintiff reported to the Director were changes made by the IRS; 2) whether plaintiff timely filed its reports of IRS changes as required by N.J.S.A 54:10A-13; and 3) whether the Director validly imposed a requirement for timely filing of a report of changes as a condition to qualification for the two-year extension of the refund

2001Corp. v. Kingsley, supra, 119 N.J.Super. at 108 , 290 A.2d 304 (citations omitted).] It is within the context of the foregoing statutory and regulatory framework that this court must decide the three issues now before it, namely: 1) whether the changes in income which plaintiff reported to the Director were changes made by the IRS; 2) whether plaintiff timely filed its reports of IRS changes as required by N.J.S.A 54:10A-13; and 3) whether the Director validly imposed a requirement for timely filing of a report of changes as a condition to qualification for the two-year extension of the refund

2025Ibid. 13 In re N.J.

2014Thus, New Cingular’s refund claim is unlike the refund claim rejected by the Director in Great Adventure, supra, in which the vendor admitted that it would be impossible to identify all of its customers who were erroneously charged sales tax — people who purchased tickets to an amusement park with discount coupons — for the purpose of reimbursing erroneously collected sales tax. 9 N.J.Tax at 487-88 .

2014Thus, New Cingular’s refund claim is unlike the refund claim rejected by the Director in Great Adventure, supra, in which the vendor admitted that it would be impossible to identify all of its customers who were erroneously charged sales tax — people who purchased tickets to an amusement park with discount coupons — for the purpose of reimbursing erroneously collected sales tax. 9 N.J.Tax at 487-88 .

2014Ibid.

2013Id. at 376 .

2012The Director contends that the Estate’s refund claim was properly denied because Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 151 , 49 S.Ct. 291 , 73 L.Ed. 647 (1929), is controlling, and therefore, subsequent events cannot be considered to determine date of death value of an estate for New Jersey estate tax purposes.

2012The Director contends that the Estate’s refund claim was properly denied because Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 151 , 49 S.Ct. 291 , 73 L.Ed. 647 (1929), is controlling, and therefore, subsequent events cannot be considered to determine date of death value of an estate for New Jersey estate tax purposes.

2012In a challenge to the Director’s final decision in the Tax Court, the Estate claimed that it was nonetheless entitled to the benefit of the equitable doctrine, despite no overt tax planning, because the intent on the part of most testators to save taxes was “widely-accepted.” Id. at 23 (quoting In re Estate of Branigan, 129 N.J. 324, 335 , 609 A.2d 431 (1992)).

2012In a challenge to the Director’s final decision in the Tax Court, the Estate claimed that it was nonetheless entitled to the benefit of the equitable doctrine, despite no overt tax planning, because the intent on the part of most testators to save taxes was “widely-accepted.” Id. at 23 (quoting In re Estate of Branigan, 129 N.J. 324, 335 , 609 A.2d 431 (1992)).

2011The Director asserts that the Estate’s refund claim was properly denied since this matter is distinguishable from Oberhand v. Director, Division of Taxation, and therefore, the doctrine of manifest injustice does not bar the retroactive application of N.J.S.A. 54:38-1 (“the Statute”). 22 N.J.Tax 55 (Tax 2005), rev’d, 388 N.J.Super. 239 , 907 A.2d 428 (App.Div.2006), rev’d in part, aff'd in part, 193 N.J. 558, 562 , 940 A.2d 1202 (2008).

2011The Director asserts that the Estate’s refund claim was properly denied since this matter is distinguishable from Oberhand v. Director, Division of Taxation, and therefore, the doctrine of manifest injustice does not bar the retroactive application of N.J.S.A. 54:38-1 (“the Statute”). 22 N.J.Tax 55 (Tax 2005), rev’d, 388 N.J.Super. 239 , 907 A.2d 428 (App.Div.2006), rev’d in part, aff'd in part, 193 N.J. 558, 562 , 940 A.2d 1202 (2008).

2011Id. at 29 , 114 S.Ct. at 2021 , 129 L.Ed.2d at 27 .

2011Id. at 29 , 114 S.Ct. at 2021 , 129 L.Ed.2d at 27 .

2011The Director asserts that the Estate’s refund claim was properly denied since this matter is distinguishable from Oberhand v. Director, Division of Taxation, and therefore, the doctrine of manifest injustice does not bar the retroactive application of N.J.S.A. 54:38-1 (“the Statute”). 22 N.J.Tax 55 (Tax 2005), rev’d, 388 N.J.Super. 239 , 907 A.2d 428 (App.Div.2006), rev’d in part, aff'd in part, 193 N.J. 558, 562 , 940 A.2d 1202 (2008).

1995Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658 , 65 S.Ct. 536 , 89 L.Ed. 535 (1945) is another federal estate tax case in which the Supreme Court held that the refund claim period began to run when an amount paid on account of taxes and held in a suspense account was actually applied to a tax rather then when the payment on account was first made.

1995Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658 , 65 S.Ct. 536 , 89 L.Ed. 535 (1945) is another federal estate tax case in which the Supreme Court held that the refund claim period began to run when an amount paid on account of taxes and held in a suspense account was actually applied to a tax rather then when the payment on account was first made.

1995Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed. 2d 78 (1991), holds that the failure of the Internal Revenue Service to make a formal assessment against taxpayers of amounts paid under closing agreements to settle disputed deficiencies did not entitle taxpayers to recover the settlement payments.

1995Plaintiff is attempting to utilize a refund claim statute, as plaintiff attempted to do in Peoples Express, supra, to extend the time for filing a complaint challenging an assessment made by the Director.

1995Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed. 2d 78 (1991), holds that the failure of the Internal Revenue Service to make a formal assessment against taxpayers of amounts paid under closing agreements to settle disputed deficiencies did not entitle taxpayers to recover the settlement payments.

1995Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed. 2d 78 (1991), holds that the failure of the Internal Revenue Service to make a formal assessment against taxpayers of amounts paid under closing agreements to settle disputed deficiencies did not entitle taxpayers to recover the settlement payments.

1995Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed. 2d 78 (1991), holds that the failure of the Internal Revenue Service to make a formal assessment against taxpayers of amounts paid under closing agreements to settle disputed deficiencies did not entitle taxpayers to recover the settlement payments.

1994Even absent the regulations, the Director’s denial of the refund claim is, to paraphrase State Farm v. Dalton, 234 N.J.Super. 128 , 560 A.2d 683 (App.Div.), cert. denied, 117 N.J. 664 , 569 A.2d 1356 (1989), and cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1078 , 110 S.Ct. 1131, 107 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1990), “[a]s [I] will explore below, ... sustainable upon broader statutory authorization, and supported by sound public policy.” 234 N.J.Super. at 133 , 560 A.2d 683 .

1994Even absent the regulations, the Director’s denial of the refund claim is, to paraphrase State Farm v. Dalton, 234 N.J.Super. 128 , 560 A.2d 683 (App.Div.), cert. denied, 117 N.J. 664 , 569 A.2d 1356 (1989), and cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1078 , 110 S.Ct. 1131, 107 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1990), “[a]s [I] will explore below, ... sustainable upon broader statutory authorization, and supported by sound public policy.” 234 N.J.Super. at 133 , 560 A.2d 683 .