refund claim in Oklahoma

7 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Strelecki v. Oklahoma Tax Commissiongreen okla · 1994 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022Strelecki , ¶ 3, 872 P.2d at 912. 2022Strelecki , ¶ 3, 872 P.2d at 912 .	1	1
cluster 719661green ca10 · 1996 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Matter of Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 5 , 919 P.2d 1151 , 1159 fn. 7; Noram Energy Corporation, v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1995 OK CIV APP 149 , 935 P.2d 389, 394 ; Oklahoma Tax Commission Precedential Order No. 92-11-24-008 (dated November 24, 1992, released November 1993), [1966 -1997 Transfer Binder] Oklahoma Tax Reporter, New Matters (CCH) ¶ 200-655 16 ; See also Amoco Production Co. v. Newton Sheep Co., supra, 85 F.3d at 1471 -1472 and Kellogg-Citizens National Bank of Green Bay, Wisconsin v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 452 , 330 F.2d 635, 638-640 (U.S.Ct.Cl.1964).	1	1
Noram Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Commissiongreen oklacivapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Matter of Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 5 , 919 P.2d 1151 , 1159 fn. 7; Noram Energy Corporation, v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1995 OK CIV APP 149 , 935 P.2d 389, 394 ; Oklahoma Tax Commission Precedential Order No. 92-11-24-008 (dated November 24, 1992, released November 1993), [1966 -1997 Transfer Binder] Oklahoma Tax Reporter, New Matters (CCH) ¶ 200-655 16 ; See also Amoco Production Co. v. Newton Sheep Co., supra, 85 F.3d at 1471 -1472 and Kellogg-Citizens National Bank of Green Bay, Wisconsin v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 452 , 330 F.2d 635, 638-640 (U.S.Ct.Cl.1964).	1	1
O'Carroll v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commissiongreen okla · 1998 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See In re Holt, 1997 OK 12 , 932 P.2d 1130, 1136 (seems clear that Legislature intended to keep open limitation period where taxpayer's federal return was in dispute — because state tax "piggy-backs” on federal return, any eventual change in federal return would affect state tax, resulting either in deficiencies or refunds in regard to State income tax); See also O'Carroll v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1998 OK 6 , 952 P.2d 45 (meaning of § 2375(H) explained). 13 .OTC and a taxpayer may agree to extend the period for assessment of a tax pursuant to 68 O.S. 1999See In re Holt, 1997 OK 12 , 932 P.2d 1130, 1136 (seems clear that Legislature intended to keep open limitation period where taxpayer's federal return was in dispute — because state tax "piggy-backs” on federal return, any eventual change in federal return would affect state tax, resulting either in deficiencies or refunds in regard to State income tax); See also O'Carroll v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1998 OK 6 , 952 P.2d 45 (meaning of § 2375(H) explained). 13 .OTC and a taxpayer may agree to extend the period for assessment of a tax pursuant to 68 O.S.	1	1
Kellogg-Citizens National Bank of Green Bay, Wisconsin, of the Estate of Joseph B. Holzer, Deceased v. The United Statesgreen cc · 1964 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See Matter of Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 5 , 919 P.2d 1151 , 1159 fn. 7; Noram Energy Corporation, v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1995 OK CIV APP 149 , 935 P.2d 389, 394 ; Oklahoma Tax Commission Precedential Order No. 92-11-24-008 (dated November 24, 1992, released November 1993), [1966 -1997 Transfer Binder] Oklahoma Tax Reporter, New Matters (CCH) ¶ 200-655 16 ; See also Amoco Production Co. v. Newton Sheep Co., supra, 85 F.3d at 1471 -1472 and Kellogg-Citizens National Bank of Green Bay, Wisconsin v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 452 , 330 F.2d 635, 638-640 (U.S.Ct.Cl.1964). 1999See Matter of Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 5 , 919 P.2d 1151 , 1159 fn. 7; Noram Energy Corporation, v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1995 OK CIV APP 149 , 935 P.2d 389, 394 ; Oklahoma Tax Commission Precedential Order No. 92-11-24-008 (dated November 24, 1992, released November 1993), [1966 -1997 Transfer Binder] Oklahoma Tax Reporter, New Matters (CCH) ¶ 200-655 16 ; See also Amoco Production Co. v. Newton Sheep Co., supra, 85 F.3d at 1471 -1472 and Kellogg-Citizens National Bank of Green Bay, Wisconsin v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 452 , 330 F.2d 635, 638-640 (U.S.Ct.Cl.1964).	1	1
Price v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commissiongreen okla · 1997 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See In re Holt, 1997 OK 12 , 932 P.2d 1130, 1136 (seems clear that Legislature intended to keep open limitation period where taxpayer's federal return was in dispute — because state tax "piggy-backs” on federal return, any eventual change in federal return would affect state tax, resulting either in deficiencies or refunds in regard to State income tax); See also O'Carroll v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1998 OK 6 , 952 P.2d 45 (meaning of § 2375(H) explained). 13 .OTC and a taxpayer may agree to extend the period for assessment of a tax pursuant to 68 O.S. 1999See In re Holt, 1997 OK 12 , 932 P.2d 1130, 1136 (seems clear that Legislature intended to keep open limitation period where taxpayer's federal return was in dispute — because state tax "piggy-backs” on federal return, any eventual change in federal return would affect state tax, resulting either in deficiencies or refunds in regard to State income tax); See also O'Carroll v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1998 OK 6 , 952 P.2d 45 (meaning of § 2375(H) explained). 13 .OTC and a taxpayer may agree to extend the period for assessment of a tax pursuant to 68 O.S.	1	1
Matter of Excise Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc.green oklacivapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Matter of Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 5 , 919 P.2d 1151 , 1159 fn. 7; Noram Energy Corporation, v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1995 OK CIV APP 149 , 935 P.2d 389, 394 ; Oklahoma Tax Commission Precedential Order No. 92-11-24-008 (dated November 24, 1992, released November 1993), [1966 -1997 Transfer Binder] Oklahoma Tax Reporter, New Matters (CCH) ¶ 200-655 16 ; See also Amoco Production Co. v. Newton Sheep Co., supra, 85 F.3d at 1471 -1472 and Kellogg-Citizens National Bank of Green Bay, Wisconsin v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 452 , 330 F.2d 635, 638-640 (U.S.Ct.Cl.1964).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Independent School District No. 9 v. Glass green okla · 1982 2 sentences 1998We further concluded that “[a] statute of limitations may be imposed on an action to recover the tax paid, but failure to prove the nature and use of the property before the assessment roll is formulated does not validate an unauthorized and illegal tax.” (Footnote omitted.) 639 P.2d at 1239 . 14 See also Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1997 OK 126 , 947 P.2d 525, 529 , where a state statute of limitations barred the taxpayers’ refund claim founded on a federal exemption of Indian land from taxation, and California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 417-418 , 102 S.Ct. 2498, 2512-2513 1998We further concluded that "[a] statute of limitations may be imposed on an action to recover the tax paid, but failure to prove the nature and use of the property before the assessment roll is formulated does not validate an unauthorized and illegal tax." (Footnote omitted.) 639 P.2d at 1239 . [14] See also Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1997 OK 126 , 947 P.2d 525, 529 , where a state statute of limitations barred the taxpayers' refund claim founded on a federal exemption of Indian land from taxation, and California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 417-418 , 102 S.Ct. 2498, 2512-25	2	1998–1998
Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission green okla · 1997 2 sentences 1998We further concluded that "[a] statute of limitations may be imposed on an action to recover the tax paid, but failure to prove the nature and use of the property before the assessment roll is formulated does not validate an unauthorized and illegal tax." (Footnote omitted.) 639 P.2d at 1239 . [14] See also Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1997 OK 126 , 947 P.2d 525, 529 , where a state statute of limitations barred the taxpayers' refund claim founded on a federal exemption of Indian land from taxation, and California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 417-418 , 102 S.Ct. 2498, 2512-25 1998We further concluded that "[a] statute of limitations may be imposed on an action to recover the tax paid, but failure to prove the nature and use of the property before the assessment roll is formulated does not validate an unauthorized and illegal tax." (Footnote omitted.) 639 P.2d at 1239 . [14] See also Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1997 OK 126 , 947 P.2d 525, 529 , where a state statute of limitations barred the taxpayers' refund claim founded on a federal exemption of Indian land from taxation, and California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 417-418 , 102 S.Ct. 2498, 2512-25	2	1998–1998
California v. Grace Brethren Church green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1998We further concluded that "[a] statute of limitations may be imposed on an action to recover the tax paid, but failure to prove the nature and use of the property before the assessment roll is formulated does not validate an unauthorized and illegal tax." (Footnote omitted.) 639 P.2d at 1239 . [14] See also Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1997 OK 126 , 947 P.2d 525, 529 , where a state statute of limitations barred the taxpayers' refund claim founded on a federal exemption of Indian land from taxation, and California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 417-418 , 102 S.Ct. 2498, 2512-25 1998We further concluded that "[a] statute of limitations may be imposed on an action to recover the tax paid, but failure to prove the nature and use of the property before the assessment roll is formulated does not validate an unauthorized and illegal tax." (Footnote omitted.) 639 P.2d at 1239 . [14] See also Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1997 OK 126 , 947 P.2d 525, 529 , where a state statute of limitations barred the taxpayers' refund claim founded on a federal exemption of Indian land from taxation, and California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 417-418 , 102 S.Ct. 2498, 2512-25	2	1998–1998
Jaworsky v. Frolich green okla · 1992 1 sentence 1999Jaworsky v. Frolich, supra, 850 P.2d at 1054-1055 .	1	1999–1999
Turner v. Oklahoma Tax Commission green okla · 1993 1 sentence 1999Turner, supra, 858 P.2d at 434 fn. 1.	1	1999–1999
Noram Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission neutral oklacivapp · 1995 2 sentences 1999See Matter of Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 5 , 919 P.2d 1151 , 1159 fn. 7; Noram Energy Corporation, v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1995 OK CIV APP 149 , 935 P.2d 389, 394 ; Oklahoma Tax Commission Precedential Order No. 92-11-24-008 (dated November 24, 1992, released November 1993), [1966 -1997 Transfer Binder] Oklahoma Tax Reporter, New Matters (CCH) ¶ 200-655 16 ; See also Amoco Production Co. v. Newton Sheep Co., supra, 85 F.3d at 1471 -1472 and Kellogg-Citizens National Bank of Green Bay, Wisconsin v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 452 , 330 F.2d 635, 638-640 (U.S.Ct.Cl.1964). 1999See Matter of Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 5 , 919 P.2d 1151 , 1159 fn. 7; Noram Energy Corporation, v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 1995 OK CIV APP 149 , 935 P.2d 389, 394 ; Oklahoma Tax Commission Precedential Order No. 92-11-24-008 (dated November 24, 1992, released November 1993), [1966 -1997 Transfer Binder] Oklahoma Tax Reporter, New Matters (CCH) ¶ 200-655 16 ; See also Amoco Production Co. v. Newton Sheep Co., supra, 85 F.3d at 1471 -1472 and Kellogg-Citizens National Bank of Green Bay, Wisconsin v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 452 , 330 F.2d 635, 638-640 (U.S.Ct.Cl.1964).	1	1999–1999
Dearmond v. Department of Revenue green ortc · 1997 1 sentence 1999DeArmond v. Department of Revenue, 14 Or.	1	1999–1999
Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury green scotus · 1989 2 sentences 1994This represents the amount of Oklahoma income tax paid on the military retirement income received by them during 1985. [7] See 68 O.S.Supp. 1989 § 2358(D)(9), supra note 4. [8] Record at 496. [9] The pertinent terms of 68 O.S. 1981 § 207 are: "(a)... the Tax Commission shall have the power to... conduct hearings... . * * * * * * (c) Any person desiring a hearing before the Tax Commission shall file an application for such hearing * * " [10] Record at 6, 11. [11] 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). [12] See Record at 529 (Oklahoma Tax Commission Order No. 91-04-25-007). [13] Ap 1994This represents the amount of Oklahoma income tax paid on the military retirement income received by them during 1985. [7] See 68 O.S.Supp. 1989 § 2358(D)(9), supra note 4. [8] Record at 496. [9] The pertinent terms of 68 O.S. 1981 § 207 are: "(a)... the Tax Commission shall have the power to... conduct hearings... . * * * * * (c) Any person desiring a hearing before the Tax Commission shall file an application for such hearing * * *" [10] Record at 6, 11. [11] 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). [12] See Record at 529 (Oklahoma Tax Commission Order No. 91-04-25-007). [13] Ap	1	1994–1994
Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson red scotus · 1971 2 sentences 1994This represents the amount of Oklahoma income tax paid on the military retirement income received by them during 1985. [7] See 68 O.S.Supp. 1989 § 2358(D)(9), supra note 4. [8] Record at 496. [9] The pertinent terms of 68 O.S. 1981 § 207 are: "(a)... the Tax Commission shall have the power to... conduct hearings... . * * * * * * (c) Any person desiring a hearing before the Tax Commission shall file an application for such hearing * * " [10] Record at 6, 11. [11] 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). [12] See Record at 529 (Oklahoma Tax Commission Order No. 91-04-25-007). [13] Ap 1994This represents the amount of Oklahoma income tax paid on the military retirement income received by them during 1985. [7] See 68 O.S.Supp. 1989 § 2358(D)(9), supra note 4. [8] Record at 496. [9] The pertinent terms of 68 O.S. 1981 § 207 are: "(a)... the Tax Commission shall have the power to... conduct hearings... . * * * * * (c) Any person desiring a hearing before the Tax Commission shall file an application for such hearing * * *" [10] Record at 6, 11. [11] 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). [12] See Record at 529 (Oklahoma Tax Commission Order No. 91-04-25-007). [13] Ap	1	1994–1994
American Motors Corp. v. Department of Revenue green wis · 1974 2 sentences 1975In American Motors Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 64 Wis.2d 337 , 219 N.W.2d 300 , the court noted this distinction and stated: “ * * * The differing result derives from the first type of action, i. e., that of the taxpayer for refund, with the taxing authority countering with an assessment, being considered to be an action for money had and received, while the second type of action, i. e., the claim of the taxing authority, countered by the taxpayer’s refund claim, is considered from the latter’s viewpoint to be a re-coupment.” The Commission contends latter cases are applicable here, t 1975In American Motors Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 64 Wis.2d 337 , 219 N.W.2d 300 , the court noted this distinction and stated: “ * * * The differing result derives from the first type of action, i. e., that of the taxpayer for refund, with the taxing authority countering with an assessment, being considered to be an action for money had and received, while the second type of action, i. e., the claim of the taxing authority, countered by the taxpayer’s refund claim, is considered from the latter’s viewpoint to be a re-coupment.” The Commission contends latter cases are applicable here, t	1	1975–1975
Vance v. South Carolina Tax Commission green sc · 1967 1 sentence 1974On appeal, the Court cited the South Carolina statute relating to the computation of the state as: “The amount of the tax as imposed by § 65-551 shall be computed in full accordance with the Federal Estate Tax law in force at the time of the death of the decedent.” 153 S.E.2d, at 843 .	1	1974–1974

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 2373 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 71 (1967–2025) NJ 27 (1985–2026) TX 27 (1994–2025) IL 15 (1993–2025) IN 14 (1973–2020) OR 10 (1973–2025) MD 9 (1993–2021) OH 8 (1975–2026) WA 8 (1994–2021) PA 8 (1965–2017) FL 8 (1976–2018) OK 7 (1974–2022) MI 7 (1987–2023) GA 6 (1973–2020) LA 5 (1992–2018) AZ 5 (1998–2021) NV 4 (2008–2016) DC 4 (1983–2024) CO 4 (1987–2011) NY 4 (1989–2017) AL 4 (1916–2009) CT 3 (2001–2018) SD 3 (2004–2006) NM 3 (1992–2026) MO 3 (1995–2014) MN 3 (1998–2013) IA 2 (1971–2014) MA 2 (1951–1967) KS 2 (2006–2012) VT 2 (1996–2010) WI 2 (1989–1999) AR 2 (1939–1995) ID 2 (1977–2005)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check