Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 215.26 (2025)
Repayment of funds paid into State Treasury through error.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
215.26 Repayment of funds paid into State Treasury through error.—
(1) The Chief Financial Officer may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, or assigns, any moneys paid into the State Treasury which constitute:
(a) An overpayment of any tax, license, or account due;
(b) A payment where no tax, license, or account is due; and
(c) Any payment made into the State Treasury in error;
and if any such payment has been credited to an appropriation, such appropriation shall at the time of making any such refund, be charged therewith. There are appropriated from the proper respective funds from time to time such sums as may be necessary for such refunds.
(2) Application for refunds as provided by this section must be filed with the Chief Financial Officer, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, within 3 years after the right to the refund has accrued or else the right is barred. Except as provided in chapter 198 and ss. 220.23 and 624.50921, an application for a refund of a tax enumerated in s. 72.011, which tax was paid after September 30, 1994, and before July 1, 1999, must be filed with the Chief Financial Officer within 5 years after the date the tax is paid, and within 3 years after the date the tax was paid for taxes paid on or after July 1, 1999. The Chief Financial Officer may delegate the authority to accept an application for refund to any state agency, or the judicial branch, vested by law with the responsibility for the collection of any tax, license, or account due. The application for refund must be on a form approved by the Chief Financial Officer and must be supplemented with additional proof the Chief Financial Officer deems necessary to establish the claim; provided, the claim is not otherwise barred under the laws of this state. Upon receipt of an application for refund, the judicial branch or the state agency to which the funds were paid shall make a determination of the amount due. If an application for refund is denied, in whole or in part, the judicial branch or such state agency shall notify the applicant stating the reasons therefor. Upon approval of an application for refund, the judicial branch or such state agency shall furnish the Chief Financial Officer with a properly executed voucher authorizing payment.
(3) No refund of moneys referred to in this section shall be made of an amount which is less than $1, except upon application.
(4) This section is the exclusive procedure and remedy for refund claims between individual funds and accounts in the State Treasury.
(5) When a taxpayer has pursued administrative remedies before the Department of Revenue pursuant to s. 213.21 and has failed to comply with the time limitations and conditions provided in ss. 72.011 and 120.80(14)(b), a claim of refund under subsection (1) shall be denied by the Chief Financial Officer. However, the Chief Financial Officer may entertain a claim for refund under this subsection when the taxpayer demonstrates that his or her failure to pursue remedies under chapter 72 was not due to neglect or for the purpose of delaying payment of lawfully imposed taxes and can demonstrate reasonable cause for such failure.
History.—s. 1, ch. 22008, 1943; s. 14, ch. 57-1; s. 1, ch. 57-18; s. 1, ch. 59-181; s. 1, ch. 63-271; s. 2, ch. 78-352; s. 28, ch. 83-339; s. 18, ch. 86-152; s. 3, ch. 91-112; s. 10, ch. 92-142; s. 10, ch. 94-314; ss. 26, 50, ch. 94-353; s. 1506, ch. 95-147; s. 43, ch. 96-410; s. 10, ch. 99-239; s. 206, ch. 2003-261; s. 21, ch. 2005-280.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1945–2025 · leading case: Sarnoff v. Fla. Dept. of High. Saf. & Motor Vehs., 825 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2002).
Sarnoff v. Fla. Dept. of High. Saf. & Motor Vehs., 825 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2002). “§ 215.26, Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added).”
Fla. Exp. Tobacco v. Dept. of Revenue, 510 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). “[3] The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend "with sufficient time allowed to satisfy the requirements of § 215.26, Fla. Stat., so that the members of the class .”
Dep't of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999). “At bottom, the most significant distinction is that the plaintiffs in Kuhnlein , unlike the plaintiffs in Victor Chemical, challenged the constitutionality of an involuntarily paid tax within the time limits prescribed by the applicable version of section 215.26, Florida…”
Christina Daly, in her Off. capacity as Sec'y of the Florida Dep't of Juv. Just. v. Polk Cnty., Florida, & Seminole Cnty., Florida, political subdivisions of the State of Florida, 265 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). “In 2014, Polk County filed a refund application under section 215.26, Florida Statutes, the tax refund statute, which states: (1) The Chief Financial Officer may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal 3 representatives, or assigns, any moneys paid into…”
Causeway Lumber Co. v. Lewis, 410 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “In 1978, Causeway applied for a refund of the excess taxes relying on Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, (1977), which allows a refund of overpaid or erroneously paid taxes.”
State Ex Rel. Victor Chem. Works v. Gay, 74 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1954). “Section 215.26, F.S.A. is as follows: "Repayment of funds paid into state treasury through error, etc.”
State, Dept. of High. Saf. v. Sarnoff, 776 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). “The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) seeks review of the circuit court's non-final order granting class certification in a case seeking refund for moneys paid into the state treasury in which none of the named plaintiffs, appellees herein, complied…”
Dep't of Revenue v. DAYSTAR FARMS, 803 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “In June 1996, however, Daystar sought a refund pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes and rule 12-1.”
Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Florida Dep't of Fin. Servs., Div. of Workers' Comp., 156 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). “This refund transaction falls squarely within the ambit of Section 215.26, Florida Statutes. (Internal citations omitted.”
Est. of WT Grant Co. v. Lewis, 358 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). “Petitioner made its claim pursuant to Section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1975). It also claimed that Section 212.”
McKesson Corp. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Bus. Reg., 496 U.S. 18 (1990). “, at 25 (recognizing refund claim could be barred if there was “any valid local [limitations] law in force when the claim was filed”); see also Fla. Stat. § 215.26 (2) (1989) (generally applicable 3-year limitations period for tax refund actions).”
Pogge v. Dep't of Revenue, 703 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “Levy relied upon section 215.26, Florida Statutes, which allows the refund of any monies paid into the state treasury "in error.”
— 215.26(1) — 10 cases
Christina Daly, in her Off. capacity as Sec'y of the Florida Dep't of Juv. Just. v. Polk Cnty., Florida, & Seminole Cnty., Florida, political subdivisions of the State of Florida, 265 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). “In 2014, Polk County filed a refund application under section 215.26, Florida Statutes, the tax refund statute, which states: (1) The Chief Financial Officer may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal 3 representatives, or assigns, any moneys paid into…”
Pogge v. Dep't of Revenue, 703 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “Levy relied upon section 215.26, Florida Statutes, which allows the refund of any monies paid into the state treasury "in error.”
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Dep't of Banking & Fin., 443 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Medley Investors, Ltd. v. Lewis, 465 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).
— 215.26(1)(a) — 1 case
Dep't of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999). “At bottom, the most significant distinction is that the plaintiffs in Kuhnlein , unlike the plaintiffs in Victor Chemical, challenged the constitutionality of an involuntarily paid tax within the time limits prescribed by the applicable version of section 215.26, Florida…”
— 215.26(1)(b) — 1 case
Dep't of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999). “At bottom, the most significant distinction is that the plaintiffs in Kuhnlein , unlike the plaintiffs in Victor Chemical, challenged the constitutionality of an involuntarily paid tax within the time limits prescribed by the applicable version of section 215.26, Florida…”
— 215.26(1)(c) — 2 cases
Pogge v. Dep't of Revenue, 703 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “Levy relied upon section 215.26, Florida Statutes, which allows the refund of any monies paid into the state treasury "in error.”
Dep't of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999). “At bottom, the most significant distinction is that the plaintiffs in Kuhnlein , unlike the plaintiffs in Victor Chemical, challenged the constitutionality of an involuntarily paid tax within the time limits prescribed by the applicable version of section 215.26, Florida…”
— 215.26(2) — 21 cases
Dep't of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999). “At bottom, the most significant distinction is that the plaintiffs in Kuhnlein , unlike the plaintiffs in Victor Chemical, challenged the constitutionality of an involuntarily paid tax within the time limits prescribed by the applicable version of section 215.26, Florida…”
Fla. Exp. Tobacco v. Dept. of Revenue, 510 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). “[3] The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend "with sufficient time allowed to satisfy the requirements of § 215.26, Fla. Stat., so that the members of the class .”
State Ex Rel. Victor Chem. Works v. Gay, 74 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1954). “Section 215.26, F.S.A. is as follows: "Repayment of funds paid into state treasury through error, etc.”
Dep't of Revenue v. DAYSTAR FARMS, 803 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “In June 1996, however, Daystar sought a refund pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes and rule 12-1.”
Sarnoff v. Fla. Dept. of High. Saf. & Motor Vehs., 825 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2002). “§ 215.26, Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added).”
— 215.26(4) — 4 cases
Dep't of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999). “At bottom, the most significant distinction is that the plaintiffs in Kuhnlein , unlike the plaintiffs in Victor Chemical, challenged the constitutionality of an involuntarily paid tax within the time limits prescribed by the applicable version of section 215.26, Florida…”
Osceola v. Florida Dep't of Revenue, 705 F. Supp. 1552 (S.D. Fla. 1989).
Nemeth v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 686 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Cox v. Porsche Fin. Servs., Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2020).
— 215.26(6) — 3 cases
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).
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.