Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 139

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 139.031

Payment of current taxes under protest

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  139.031.  Payment of current taxes under protest — action, when commenced, how tried — refunds, how made, may be used as credit for next year's taxes — interest, when allowed — collector to invest protested taxes, disbursal to taxing authorities, when. — 1.  Any taxpayer may protest all or any part of any current taxes assessed against the taxpayer, except taxes collected by the director of revenue of Missouri.  Any such taxpayer desiring to pay any current taxes under protest or while paying taxes based upon a disputed assessment shall, at the time of paying such taxes, make full payment of the current tax bill before the delinquency date and file with the collector a written statement setting forth the grounds on which the protest is based.  The statement shall include the true value in money claimed by the taxpayer if disputed.  An appeal before the state tax commission shall not be dismissed on the grounds that a taxpayer failed to file a written statement when paying taxes based upon a disputed assessment.

  2.  Upon receiving payment of current taxes under protest under subsection 1 of this section or upon receiving from the state tax commission or the circuit court notice of an appeal from the state tax commission or the circuit court under section 138.430, along with full payment of the current tax bill before the delinquency date, the collector shall disburse to the proper official all portions of taxes not protested or not disputed by the taxpayer and shall impound in a separate fund all portions of such taxes which are protested or in dispute.  Every taxpayer protesting the payment of current taxes under subsection 1 of this section shall, within ninety days after filing his protest, commence an action against the collector by filing a petition for the recovery of the amount protested in the circuit court of the county in which the collector maintains his office.  If any taxpayer so protesting his taxes under subsection 1 of this section shall fail to commence an action in the circuit court for the recovery of the taxes protested within the time prescribed in this subsection, such protest shall become null and void and of no effect, and the collector shall then disburse to the proper official the taxes impounded, and any interest earned thereon, as provided above in this subsection.

  3.  No action against the collector shall be commenced by any taxpayer who has, effective for the current tax year, filed with the state tax commission or the circuit court a timely and proper appeal of the assessment of the taxpayer's property.  The portion of taxes in dispute from an appeal of an assessment shall be impounded in a separate fund and the commission in its decision and order issued under chapter 138 or the circuit court in its judgment may order all or any part of such taxes refunded to the taxpayer, or may authorize the collector to release and disburse all or any part of such taxes.

  4.  Trial of the action for recovery of taxes protested under subsection 1 of this section in the circuit court shall be in the manner prescribed for nonjury civil proceedings, and, after determination of the issues, the court shall make such orders as may be just and equitable to refund to the taxpayer all or any part of the current taxes paid under protest, together with any interest earned thereon, or to authorize the collector to release and disburse all or any part of the impounded taxes, and any interest earned thereon, to the appropriate officials of the taxing authorities.  Either party to the proceedings may appeal the determination of the circuit court.

  5.  All the county collectors of taxes, and the collector of taxes in any city not within a county, shall, upon written application of a taxpayer, refund or credit against the taxpayer's tax liability in the following taxable year and subsequent consecutive taxable years until the taxpayer has received credit in full for any real or personal property tax mistakenly or erroneously levied against the taxpayer and collected in whole or in part by the collector.  Such application shall be filed within three years after the tax is mistakenly or erroneously paid.  The governing body, or other appropriate body or official of the county or city not within a county, shall make available to the collector funds necessary to make refunds under this subsection by issuing warrants upon the fund to which the mistaken or erroneous payment has been credited, or otherwise.

  6.  No taxpayer shall receive any interest on any money paid in by the taxpayer erroneously.

  7.  All protested taxes impounded under protest under subsection 1 of this section and all disputed taxes impounded under notice as required by section 138.430 shall be invested by the collector in the same manner as assets specified in section 30.260 for investment of state moneys.  A taxpayer who is entitled to a refund of protested or disputed taxes shall also receive the interest earned on the investment thereof.  If the collector is ordered to release and disburse all or part of the taxes paid under protest or dispute to the proper official, such taxes shall be disbursed along with the proportional amount of interest earned on the investment of the taxes due the particular taxing authority.

  8.  Any taxing authority may request to be notified by the county collector of current taxes paid under protest.  Such request shall be in writing and submitted on or before February first next following the delinquent date of current taxes paid under protest or disputed, and the county collector shall provide such information on or before March first of the same year to the requesting taxing authority of the taxes paid under protest and disputed taxes which would be received by such taxing authority if the funds were not the subject of a protest or dispute.  Any taxing authority may apply to the circuit court of the county or city not within a county in which a collector has impounded protested or disputed taxes under this section and, upon a satisfactory showing that such taxing authority would receive such impounded tax funds if they were not the subject of a protest or dispute and that such taxing authority has the financial ability and legal capacity to repay such impounded tax funds in the event a decision ordering a refund to the taxpayer is subsequently made, the circuit court shall order, pendente lite, the disbursal of all or any part of such impounded tax funds to such taxing authority.  The circuit court issuing an order under this subsection shall retain jurisdiction of such matter for further proceedings, if any, to compel restitution of such tax funds to the taxpayer.  In the event that any protested or disputed tax funds refunded to a taxpayer were disbursed to a taxing authority under this subsection instead of being held and invested by the collector under subsection 7 of this section, the taxpayer shall be entitled to interest on all refunded tax funds at the annual rate calculated by the state treasurer and applied by the director of revenue under section 32.068.  This measure of interest shall only apply to protested or disputed tax funds actually distributed to a taxing authority pursuant to this subsection.  In the event of a refund of protested or disputed tax funds which remain impounded by the collector, the taxpayer shall instead be entitled to the interest actually earned on those refunded impounded tax funds under subsection 7 of this section.  Any sovereign or official immunity otherwise applicable to the taxing authorities is hereby waived for all purposes related to this subsection, and the taxpayer is expressly authorized to seek an order enforcing this provision from the circuit court that originally ordered the distribution of the protested or disputed funds, or directly from the state tax commission, if the tax appeal that resulted in the refund was heard and determined by the state tax commission.

  9.  No appeal filed from the circuit court's or state tax commission's determination pertaining to the amount of refund shall stay any order of refund, but the decision filed by any court of last review modifying that determination shall be binding on the parties, and the decision rendered shall be complied with by the party affected by any modification within ninety days of the date of such decision.  No taxpayer shall receive any interest on any additional award of refund, and the collector shall not receive any interest on any ordered return of refund in whole or in part.

­­--------

(L. 1969 p. 249 §§ 1 to 5, A.L. 1971 S.B. 166, A.L. 1983 S.B. 63, et al., A.L. 1986 S.B. 707, A.L. 1987 H.B. 909, A.L. 1989 H.B. 728, A.L. 1998 H.B. 1837, A.L. 2003 H.B. 60, A.L. 2004 S.B. 1012, A.L. 2008 S.B. 711, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1316, A.L. 2019 S.B. 87)

(2003) Clerical mistake by taxpayer concerning valuation does not result in mistakenly or erroneously paid taxes.  Missouri American Water Co. v. Collector of St. Charles County, 103 S.W.3d 266 (Mo.App.E.D.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: State ex rel. Slah, L.L.C. v. City of Woodson Terrace
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Slah, L.L.C. v. City of Woodson Terrace (2012) mo · cites it 52× “Because SLAH has an adequate remedy at law under section 139.031, the trial court erred in entering a declaratory judgment against the city.”
Zweig v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (2013) mo · cites it 15× “The trial court reasoned that Ratepayers were not entitled to refunds because they failed to comply with the refund procedures in section 139.031, RSMo Cum.Supp.2012. Both parties addressed the applicability of section 139.”
Ford Motor Co. v. City of Hazelwood (2005) moctapp · cites it 41× “00 in license fees plus pre-judgment interest to Ford Motor Company pursuant to Section 139.031, R.S.Mo 2000, 1 and granting declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting Hazelwood from enforcing its ordinances in a manner violative of the Commerce Clause.”
B & D Inv. Co., Inc. v. Schneider (1983) mo · cites it 26× “*762 Section 139.031, which was a new section when adopted in 1969, must be reconciled with the remedies available to a taxpayer against the imposition of invalid property taxes existing at the time of its adoption.”
Westglen Village Associates v. Leachman (1983) mo · cites it 25× “61 were paid under protest by Westglen on December 30, 1981 pursuant to § 139.031. [1] In its protest letter to the collector which was also attached to its petition, Westglen alleged the assessment was as a result of "overreaching" by the assessor because the assessor did not…”
Lane v. Lensmeyer (2005) mo · cites it 9× “2 and (2) a refund from Collector pursuant to sections 139.031 and 139.290 for the taxes they paid as a result of the allegedly excessive 2001 tax rate.”
General Motors Corp. v. City of Kansas City (1995) moctapp · cites it 21× “This court does not reach GM’s points of alleged error, however, because GM’s recovery is barred by its failure to make or file a written protest at the times it paid the license taxes as required by § 139.031, RSMo 1986. 1 The trial court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed.”
Quaker Oats Co. v. Stanton (2003) moctapp · cites it 17× “In 1983, the legislature revised section 139.031 to provide that any taxpayer *138 who has filed an appeal with the state tax commission is not required to file suit against the collector but must notify the collector in writing of the appeal.”
Council House Redevelopment Corp. v. Hill (1996) mo · cites it 18× “Subsequent to its filing of the present action, Council House paid without protest ad valorem taxes that were assessed in 1992 and 1993.”
Adams v. FRIGANZA (2011) moctapp · cites it 28× “Points on Appeal In their first point, Appellants claim the trial court erred in granting Respondents’ motions to dismiss based on standing and on Appellants’ failure to seek a timely refund of the lateral sewer fee pursuant to Section 139.031, because the Hancock Amendment…”
Boyd-Richardson Co. v. Leachman (1981) mo · cites it 15× “*49 Section 139.031 RSMo 1978, 2 authorizes the payment of taxes, other than taxes collected by the Director of Revenue of Missouri, to be made under protest.”
Ring v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (1998) mo · cites it 15× “Plaintiffs claimed to represent approximately 420,000 MSD ratepayers who paid the unconstitutionally-imposed fee.”
Show all 99 citing cases →
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 139.031(1) — 7 cases
B & D Inv. Co., Inc. v. Schneider (1983) mo “*762 Section 139.031, which was a new section when adopted in 1969, must be reconciled with the remedies available to a taxpayer against the imposition of invalid property taxes existing at the time of its adoption.”
Sperry Corp. v. Wiles (1985) mo
Buck v. Leggett (1991) mo
Crest Communications v. Kuehle (1988) mo
Ackerman Buick, Inc. v. St. Louis County (1989) mo
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 139.031(2) — 3 cases
B & D Inv. Co., Inc. v. Schneider (1983) mo “*762 Section 139.031, which was a new section when adopted in 1969, must be reconciled with the remedies available to a taxpayer against the imposition of invalid property taxes existing at the time of its adoption.”
Sperry Corp. v. Wiles (1985) mo
UMB BANK, NA. v. City of Kansas City (2007) moctapp
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 139.031(4) — 4 cases
Quaker Oats Co. v. Stanton (2003) moctapp “In 1983, the legislature revised section 139.031 to provide that any taxpayer *138 who has filed an appeal with the state tax commission is not required to file suit against the collector but must notify the collector in writing of the appeal.”
B & D Inv. Co., Inc. v. Schneider (1983) mo “*762 Section 139.031, which was a new section when adopted in 1969, must be reconciled with the remedies available to a taxpayer against the imposition of invalid property taxes existing at the time of its adoption.”
State ex rel. Council Apartments, Inc. v. Leachman (1980) mo
State ex rel. Crawford County R-II School District v. Bouse (1979) moctapp
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 139.031(5) — 2 cases
Crest Communications v. Kuehle (1988) mo
Noranda Aluminum, Inc. v. Missouri Department of Revenue (1980) mo
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.