O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-8-72 (2019)

Over-collected sales or use tax

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A cause of action against a seller for over-collected sales or use taxes does not accrue until a purchaser has provided written notice to the seller and the seller has had 60 days to respond. Such notice to the seller must contain the information necessary to determine the validity of the request.

(b) In connection with a purchaser’s request from a seller of overcollected sales or use taxes, a seller shall be presumed to have a reasonable business practice if, in the collection of such sales or use taxes, the seller:

(1) Uses either a provider or a system, including a proprietary system, that is certified by the state; and

(2) Has remitted to the state all taxes collected less any deductions, credits, or collection allowances.

History

Code 1981, § 48-8-72, enacted by Ga. L.

2010, p. 662, § 18/HB 1221; Ga. L. 2013, p. 141, § 48/HB 79.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2013–2016 · leading case: Georgia Power Co. v. Cazier, 740 S.E.2d 458 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Georgia Power Co. v. Cazier, 740 S.E.2d 458 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 20× “As an alternative basis for their action, the appellees rely, in addition to OCGA § 48-2-35.1 (d), on OCGA § 48-8-72.”

Amy N. Cazier v. Georgia Power Co., 793 S.E.2d 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “1 (d) (“Refund of sales and use taxes; expedited refunds”) or OCGA § 48-8-72 (“Over-collected sales or use tax”), and reversed the trial court’s denial of Georgia Power’s motion to dismiss with reference to those claims.”

Georgia Power Co. v. Amy N. Cazier (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 20× “While OCGA § 48-8-72, which was enacted pursuant to a uniform act, contemplates a possible cause of action against dealers, it does not create a cause of action.”

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.