Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 5733 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

Ohio Rev. Code § 5733.12

Crediting of payments to funds - filing of refund application

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
December 1, 2007
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 119 - 127th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) All payments received from the taxes imposed under sections 5733.06 and 5733.41 of the Revised Code shall be credited to the general revenue fund.

(B) Except as otherwise provided under divisions (C) and (D) of this section, an application to refund to the corporation the amount of taxes imposed under section 5733.06 of the Revised Code that are overpaid, paid illegally or erroneously, or paid on any illegal, erroneous, or excessive assessment, with interest thereon as provided by section 5733.26 of the Revised Code, shall be filed with the tax commissioner, on the form prescribed by the commissioner, within three years from the date of the illegal, erroneous, or excessive payment of the tax, or within any additional period allowed by division (C)(2) of section 5733.031, division (D)(2) of section 5733.067, or division (A) of section 5733.11 of the Revised Code. For purposes of division (B) of this section, any payment that the applicant made before the due date or extended due date for filing the report to which the payment relates shall be deemed to have been made on the due date or extended due date.

On the filing of the refund application, the commissioner shall determine the amount of refund to which the applicant is entitled. If the amount is not less than that claimed the commissioner shall certify the amount to the director of budget and management and treasurer of state for payment from the tax refund fund created by section 5703.052 of the Revised Code. If the amount is less than that claimed, the commissioner shall proceed in accordance with section 5703.70 of the Revised Code.

(C) "Ninety days" shall be substituted for "three years" in division (B) of this section if the taxpayer satisfies both of the following:

(1) The taxpayer has applied for a refund based in whole or in part upon section 5733.0611 of the Revised Code;

(2) The taxpayer asserts that the imposition or collection of the tax imposed or charged by section 5733.06 of the Revised Code or any portion of such tax violates the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of this state.

(D)(1) Division (D)(2) of this section applies only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) A qualifying pass-through entity pays an amount of the tax imposed by section 5733.41 of the Revised Code;

(b) The taxpayer is a qualifying investor as to that qualifying pass-through entity;

(c) The taxpayer did not claim the credit provided for in section 5733.0611 of the Revised Code as to the tax described in division (D)(1)(a) of this section;

(d) The three-year period described in division (B) of this section has ended as to the taxable year for which the taxpayer otherwise would have claimed that credit.

(2) A taxpayer shall file an application for refund pursuant to this division within one year after the date the payment described in division (D)(1)(a) of this section is made. An application filed under this division shall only claim refund of overpayments resulting from the taxpayer's failure to claim the credit described in division (D)(1)(c) of this section. Nothing in this division shall be construed to relieve a taxpayer from complying with the provisions of division (I)(14) of section 5733.04 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Nestle R&D Center, Inc. v. Levin
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nestle R&D Center, Inc. v. Levin (2009) ohio · cites it 24× “2 (R.C. 5733.12 “provide[s] a substantive right — the right to a refund”).”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno (2006) scotus · cites it 2× “A First, plaintiffs claim that because state law requires revenues from the franchise tax to be distributed to local governments, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5733.12 (Lexis 2005), the award of a credit to DaimlerChrysler reduced such distributions and thus depleted the funds of "local…”
Hanna Mining Co. v. Limbach (1985) ohio · cites it 10× “The issue before us is whether the three-year limitations period contained in R.C. 5733.12, as applicable to corporate franchise taxes, runs from the time the franchise tax report is filed for all prior installment payments or whether the limitations period runs separately each…”
Lancaster Colony Corp. v. Lindley (1980) ohio · cites it 10× “11 and an application for refund of corporate franchise taxes filed in accordance with R.C. 5733.12. R.C. 5733.11 provides, in pertinent part, that: “If upon final determination of the application * * * so filed * * * so that the amount due from such corporation * * * is less…”
East Ohio Gas Co. v. Limbach (1986) ohio · cites it 6× “3d 1 ], appellants contended that the three-year filing deadline of R.C. 5733.12 (effective in December 1971) did not govern their applications for franchise tax refunds because their tax obligations were incurred prior to the effective date of that statute.”
MacDonald v. Cleveland Income Tax Bd. of Rev. (Slip Opinion) (2017) ohio · cites it 2× “We held that while the statutory authorization for rule 8 January Term, 2017 promulgation “surely confers authority on the Department of Development to establish reasonable deadlines for submitting documentation, we do not read that provision as authorizing the Director of…”
General Motors Corp. v. Limbach (1993) ohio · cites it 2× “GM admits that it owes additional tax due to the federal adjustments and that R.C. 5733.12 bars refund since its claim is not timely.”
Olan Mills Inc. v. Limbach (1990) ohio · cites it 5× “Does R.C. 5733.12 negate this “timely report” requirement of R.”
Mission Funding Alpha v. Commonwealth, Aplt. (2017) pa “” Ohio Rev. Code § 5733.12. The Ohio Supreme Court reasoned because the tax commissioner is given three years from the date a final franchise tax report is filed to assess additional taxes it would be inequitable to require taxpayers to keep track of multiple limitations periods…”
International Business Machines Corp. v. Zaino (2002) ohio · cites it 8× “12(B), procedures are set forth for a corporation to seek a refund of taxes either (1) “overpaid,” (2) “paid illegally or erroneously,” or (3) “paid on any illegal, erroneous, or excessive assessment.”
City of Elyria v. Lorain County Budget Commission (2008) ohio “03(A)(4) (personal income tax); R.C. 5733.12(A) (corporation franchise tax); R.”
Kroger Co. v. Limbach (1990) ohioctapp · cites it 4× “The appellee dismissed the refund application for want of jurisdiction, indicating that the application was not filed within the three-year period required by R.C. 5733.12, and that dismissal was upheld by the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5733.12(A) — 1 case
City of Elyria v. Lorain County Budget Commission (2008) ohio “03(A)(4) (personal income tax); R.C. 5733.12(A) (corporation franchise tax); R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5733.12(B) — 9 cases
Nestle R&D Center, Inc. v. Levin (2009) ohio “2 (R.C. 5733.12 “provide[s] a substantive right — the right to a refund”).”
MacDonald v. Cleveland Income Tax Bd. of Rev. (Slip Opinion) (2017) ohio “We held that while the statutory authorization for rule 8 January Term, 2017 promulgation “surely confers authority on the Department of Development to establish reasonable deadlines for submitting documentation, we do not read that provision as authorizing the Director of…”
International Business Machines Corp. v. Zaino (2002) ohio “12(B), procedures are set forth for a corporation to seek a refund of taxes either (1) “overpaid,” (2) “paid illegally or erroneously,” or (3) “paid on any illegal, erroneous, or excessive assessment.”
UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Levin (2008) ohio
Olan Mills Inc. v. Limbach (1990) ohio “Does R.C. 5733.12 negate this “timely report” requirement of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5733.12(B)(1) — 1 case
Kaiser Engineers, Inc. v. Limbach (1990) ohioctapp
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.