Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 5739
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 5739.07 (2026)

Vendor or consumer refunds

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 30, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 96 - 136th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) When, pursuant to this chapter, a vendor has paid taxes to the tax commissioner or the commissioner's agent, the commissioner shall refund to the vendor the amount of taxes paid, and any penalties assessed with respect to such taxes, if the vendor has refunded to the consumer the full amount of taxes the consumer paid illegally or erroneously or if the vendor has illegally or erroneously billed the consumer but has not collected the taxes from the consumer.

(B) When, pursuant to this chapter, a consumer has paid taxes directly to the tax commissioner or the commissioner's agent, and the payment or assessment was illegal or erroneous, the commissioner shall refund to the consumer the full amount of illegal or erroneous taxes paid and any penalties assessed with respect to such taxes.

(C) The commissioner shall refund to the consumer amounts paid illegally or erroneously to a vendor only if:

(1) The commissioner has not refunded the tax to the vendor and the vendor has not refunded the tax to the consumer; or

(2) The consumer has received a refund from a manufacturer or other person, other than the vendor, of the full purchase price, but not the tax, paid to the vendor in settlement of a complaint by the consumer about the property or service purchased.

The commissioner may require the consumer to obtain or the vendor to provide a written statement confirming that the vendor has not refunded the tax to the consumer and has not filed an application for refund of the tax with the commissioner.

(D) Subject to division (E) of this section, an application for refund shall be filed with the tax commissioner on the form prescribed by the commissioner within four years from the date of the illegal or erroneous payment, unless the vendor or consumer waives the time limitation under division (A)(3) of section 5739.16 of the Revised Code. If the time limitation is waived, the refund application period shall be extended for the same period as the waiver.

(E) An application for refund shall be filed in accordance with division (D) of this section unless a person is subject to an assessment that is subject to the time limit of division (B) of section 5703.58 of the Revised Code for amounts not reported and paid between the four-year time limit described in division (D) of this section and the seven-year limit described in division (B) of section 5703.58 of the Revised Code, in which case the person may file an application within six months after the date the assessment is issued. Any refund allowed under this division shall not exceed the amount of the assessment due for the same period.

(F) On the filing of an application for a refund, 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 that amount to the director of budget and management and the 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.

(G) When a refund is granted under this section, it shall include interest thereon as provided by section 5739.132 of the Revised Code, except that no such interest shall be granted when a refund is granted for illegal or erroneous payments made pursuant to a direct payment permit issued under section 5739.031 of the Revised Code or division (I) of section 122.175 of the Revised Code.

Last updated July 31, 2025 at 11:58 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2022 · leading case: San Allen, Inc. v. Buehrer, 2014-Ohio-2071, 11 N.E.3d 739.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
San Allen, Inc. v. Buehrer, 2014-Ohio-2071, 11 N.E.3d 739. · cites it 7× “Brown argued that because the tax commissioner had previously issued an “information release,” “an ‘official statement’ declaring the policy of the Tax Commissioner,” which was adverse to the claims of Brown and the putative class, it was “certain that any application filed…”
Key Servs. Corp. v. Zaino, 764 N.E.2d 1015 (Ohio 2002). “Applications for a refund shall be made in the same manner and subject to the same time limitations as provided in sections 5739.07 and 5741.10 of the Revised Code.”
Directv, Inc. v. Levin, 907 N.E.2d 1242 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2009). “The trial court erred in requiring plaintiffs-cross-appellants (“plaintiffs”) to apply for refunds through the administrative process set forth in R.C. 5739.07, which does not apply to challenges to the validity of a tax law and which imposes requirements virtually impossible to…”
Chrysler Fin. Co. v. Wilkins, 812 N.E.2d 948 (Ohio 2004). “Code 5703-9-44(E), which provides, “In the event that the bad debt deduction exceeds the net taxable sales of the vendor for that period, the tax attributable to the excess amount can only be recovered by refund claim pursuant to sections 5739.07 and 5741.10 of the Revised Code.”
Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Levin, 2009-Ohio-1431, 121 Ohio St. 3d 482. “If the vendor neglects to claim the offset against sales during the current period, it can obtain the deduction through a refund claim pursuant to R.C. 5739.07. Ohio Adm.Code 5703-9-44(E).”
S. S. Kresge Co. v. Bowers, 206 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio 1965). · cites it 4× “31, inclusive, of the Revised Code, is not part of the price, but is a tax collection for the benefit of the state, and except for the discount authorized in Section 5739.07 of the Revised Code, no person other than the state shall derive any benefit from the collection or…”
Scott v. Ohio Dep't of Taxation, 462 N.E.2d 1234 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983). “Likewise, the statutory tax refund provisions of R.C. 5739.07 and 5747.11 do not preclude an action to set aside a preference made to a creditor by an insolvent debtor within ninety days of bankruptcy, especially since the statutory bases for refund do not include the preference…”
Gen. Elec. Co. v. DeCourcy, 397 N.E.2d 397 (Ohio 1979). · cites it 2× “31 , the syllabus of which reads as follows: “Where, as a result of a proceeding under Section 5546-8, General Code (Section 5739.07, Revised Code), a party recovers a refund of sales taxes illegally or erroneously paid by him, he is not entitled to recover interest on the…”
Key Serv. Corp. v. Zaino, 95 Ohio St. 3d 11 (2002). “Applications for a refund shall be made in the same manner and subject to the same time limitations as provided in sections 5739.07 and 5741.10 of the Revised Code.”
Stines v. Limbach, 573 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1988). · cites it 3× “Appellee contends that a refund should not be made because R.C. 5739.07 requires that the refund be made to the vendor rather than the consumer.”
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Levin, 2010-Ohio-1861, 125 Ohio St. 3d 347. · cites it 13× “071(A) to the general refund provisions, R.C. 5739.07 (sales tax) and 5741.10 (use tax), incorporated the statutory right to interest under those provisions.”
State ex rel. Cleveland Concession Co. v. Peck, 161 Ohio St. (N.S.) 31 (Ohio 1954). · cites it 6× “Relator recovered the illegal or erroneous payments by a proceeding under Section 5546-8, General Code (Section 5739.07, Revised Code), which reads in part as follows: “The Treasurer of State shall redeem and pay for any unused or spoiled tax receipts at the net value thereof,…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 5739.07(A): 2 cases
San Allen, Inc. v. Buehrer, 2014-Ohio-2071, 11 N.E.3d 739. “Brown argued that because the tax commissioner had previously issued an “information release,” “an ‘official statement’ declaring the policy of the Tax Commissioner,” which was adverse to the claims of Brown and the putative class, it was “certain that any application filed…”
Colonial, Inc. v. McClain, 2022-Ohio-1149, 200 N.E.3d 179.
Ohio Rev. Code § 5739.07(E): 1 case
San Allen, Inc. v. Buehrer, 2014-Ohio-2071, 11 N.E.3d 739. “Brown argued that because the tax commissioner had previously issued an “information release,” “an ‘official statement’ declaring the policy of the Tax Commissioner,” which was adverse to the claims of Brown and the putative class, it was “certain that any application filed…”
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.