Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-515 (2026)
Refund claims
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any taxpayer who feels that he has overpaid any taxes due under this chapter may file a claim for refund in writing with the commissioner within three years from the due date for which such overpayment was made stating the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded. Not later than ninety days following receipt of such claim for refund the commissioner shall determine whether such claim is valid and if so, said commissioner shall notify the Comptroller of the amount of such refund and the Comptroller shall draw an order on the Treasurer in the amount thereof for payment to the taxpayer. To the amount of such refund there shall be added interest at the rate of three-fourths of one per cent for each month or fraction thereof which elapses between the ninetieth day following receipt of such claim for refund by the commissioner and the date of notice by the commissioner that such refund is due. Failure to file a claim within the time prescribed in this section constitutes a waiver of any demand against the state on account of overpayment. Within thirty days after disallowing any claim in whole or in part the commissioner shall serve notice of his action on the claimant.
(June, 1969, P.A. 1, S. 36; P.A. 85-356, S. 7, 9.)
History: P.A. 85-356 added provisions detailing procedures for determining validity of claims for refunds and payment of refunds and interest, if any, effective July 1, 1985, and applicable to taxable years commencing on or after January 1, 1985.
Cited. 234 C. 614.
Cited. 44 CS 126.
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1995–2007 · leading case: Chatterjee v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 894 A.2d 919 (Conn. 2006).
Chatterjee v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 894 A.2d 919 (Conn. 2006). “2 On appeal, 3 the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the defendant’s decision to deny the plaintiffs’ request for a refund because, under § 12-39s (c), that determination is committed to the defendant’s sole…”
Lostritto v. Cmty. Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 848 A.2d 418 (Conn. 2004). “2d 762 (1995), claiming that § 52-102b is analogous to General Statutes § 12-515, 14 which, in Katz , was held to be directory.”
Katz v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 662 A.2d 762 (Conn. 1995). “The plaintiff paid the additional tax and interest under protest, and filed a refund claim, pursuant to General Statutes § 12-515, 2 which was received by the defendant on April 1, 1991.”
Fadner v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 917 A.2d 540 (Conn. 2007). “to subtract the 1992 and 1993 net operating losses from their adjusted gross income on their 1995 and 1996 returns because net operating losses are not included within the specific modifications permitted by § 12-701 (a) (20) *725 (B), (2) the plaintiffs’ request to file amended…”
Levy v. Miller, 669 A.2d 1260 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995). “The commissioner denied the plaintiffs’ claim for a refund based upon his determination that the three year statute of limitations, provided in General Statutes § 12-515 3 commenced to run from the initial due date of their return on April 15, 1991, rather than October 15, 1991,…”
Chatterjee v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 827 A.2d 801 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003). “For the taxable years of 1989 and 1990, however, the commissioner, on October 27,1999, issued the plaintiffs a notice of disallowance explaining that the 1989 and 1990 *31 refund claims were being denied without any review of the merits of their claims because the plaintiffs’…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.