taxpayer. (a) In addition to the right to a protest of a proposed assessment as authorized by Section 221 of this title, a right of action is hereby created to afford a remedy to a taxpayer aggrieved by the provisions of this article or of any other state tax law, or who resists the collection of or the enforcement of the rules or regulations of the Tax Commission relating to the collection of any state tax; however, such remedy shall be limited as prescribed by subsection (c) of this section. (b) Within thirty (30) days from the date indicated on an assessment for taxes or additional taxes pursuant to Section 221 of this title by the Tax Commission, any such taxpayer shall pay the tax to the Tax Commission, and at the time of making such payment
shall give notice to the Tax Commission of his intention to file suit for recovery of such tax. The taxpayer shall not be required to file suit within such thirty-day period in order to prosecute an action as authorized by this section; however, failure to file such suit within one (1) year from the date of the assessment shall result in the assessment becoming final and absolute. If the taxpayer prevails the Tax Commission shall, by cash voucher drawn by the Tax Commission upon its official depository clearing account or special refund reserve account with the State Treasurer, refund to the taxpayer the amount of tax determined not to be due pursuant to the final judgment of the court having jurisdiction, together with interest on such amount at the rate applicable to money judgments in civil cases from the date of payment by the taxpayer to the date of the refund by the Tax Commission. The refunds paid shall be payable as provided in Section 225(d). If the taxpayer prevails and the court determines that the position of the Tax Commission in the proceeding was not substantially justified, the court shall award the taxpayer a judgment for reasonable attorney fees, reasonable expenses of expert witnesses in connection with the proceeding and reasonable costs of any study, analysis, engineering report, test or project which is found by the court to be necessary for the preparation of the taxpayer's case. (c) This section shall afford a legal remedy and right of action in any state or federal court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. It shall be construed to provide a legal remedy in the state or federal courts by action at law only in cases where the taxes complained of are claimed to be an unlawful burden on interstate commerce, or the collection thereof violative of any Congressional Act or provision of the Federal Constitution, or in cases where jurisdiction is vested in any of the Courts of the United States. In all actions brought hereunder service of process upon the Chairman of the Tax Commission shall be sufficient service, and the Tax Commission shall be the sole, necessary and proper party defendant in any such suit, and the State Treasurer shall not be a necessary or proper party thereto. (d) Upon request of any taxpayer and upon proper showing that the principle of law involved in the assessment of any tax is already pending before the courts for judicial determination, the taxpayer, upon agreement to abide by the decision of the court, may pay the tax so assessed under protest, but need not file a suit. Added by Laws 1965, c. 414, § 2, emerg. eff. July 7, 1965. Amended by Laws 1978, c. 211, § 2, emerg. eff. April 19, 1978; Laws 1989, c. 249, § 13, eff. July 1, 1989; Laws 1990, c. 339, § 16, emerg. eff. May 31, 1990; Laws 2023, c. 113, § 3, eff. July 1, 2023.
Notes of Decisions
Warehouse Mkt. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm., 2021 OK 6 (Okla. 2021).
· cites it 7× “2d 843 and Title 68 O.S. 2011 §226 provides in pertinent part: (a) In addition to the right to a protest of a proposed assessment as authorized by Section 221 of this title, a right of action is hereby created to afford a remedy to a taxpayer aggrieved by the provisions of this…”
Stallings v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 880 P.2d 912 (Okla. 1994).
· cites it 5× “On April 5, 1989, they filed suit in the District Court of Oklahoma County under 68 O.S.1981 § 226 1 seeking a refund of those taxes from appellee, Oklahoma Tax Commission.”
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2012).
“Subject Matter Jurisdiction and the OTC MCN argues that we have jurisdiction over its claims against the OTC based on state waiver under Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 226 and congressional abrogation through 28 U.”
Ladd Petroleum Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 619 P.2d 602 (Okla. 1980).
· cites it 4× “[2] The company did not pay the tax and give notice of its intention to file an action in the district court under 68 O.S.Supp. 1978 § 226 within the 30-day time limit required by that section.”
Wilson v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 594 P.2d 1210 (Okla. 1979).
· cites it 2× “The appellee paid the additional assessment and brought this action for recovery pursuant to 68 O.S.1971 § 226(b). 1 At the time Charles Wilson made the gift, there was a reb.”
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Smith, 610 P.2d 794 (Okla. 1980).
· cites it 2× “The remedy in District Court afforded by 68 O.S.Supp. 1979 § 226 is therefore not exclusive, as argued by the Attorney General.”
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. City Vending of Muskogee, Inc., 835 P.2d 97 (Okla. 1992).
· cites it 3× “Is the wholesale of cigarettes to an Indian Tribe exempt from state tax pursuant to the Commerce Clause? 2. Should the license have been revoked since City Vending has filed the case on the constitutional question, after paying the contested taxes, pursuant to 68 O.”
Cimarron Indus., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 621 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1980).
· cites it 3× “Two questions are presented by this appeal: 1) Did the trial court have jurisdiction pursuant to 68 O.S.1971 § 226(c) 1 to deter *541 mine the amount of registration fees and penalties due because of the late registration of aircraft, and 2) Did the registration fee double after…”
Hamil v. Walker, 604 P.2d 377 (Okla. 1979).
· cites it 3× “However, he took no action to initiate a jury trial in the Oklahoma County District Court, nor did he pay the tax under protest as required by 68 O.S.Supp.1978 § 226(b). 4 The Commission determined that the taxpayer’s letter was tantamount to a protest, and that because he did…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 226(b) — 5 cases
Wilson v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 594 P.2d 1210 (Okla. 1979).
“The appellee paid the additional assessment and brought this action for recovery pursuant to 68 O.S.1971 § 226(b). 1 At the time Charles Wilson made the gift, there was a reb.”
Stallings v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 880 P.2d 912 (Okla. 1994).
“On April 5, 1989, they filed suit in the District Court of Oklahoma County under 68 O.S.1981 § 226 1 seeking a refund of those taxes from appellee, Oklahoma Tax Commission.”
Hamil v. Walker, 604 P.2d 377 (Okla. 1979).
“However, he took no action to initiate a jury trial in the Oklahoma County District Court, nor did he pay the tax under protest as required by 68 O.S.Supp.1978 § 226(b). 4 The Commission determined that the taxpayer’s letter was tantamount to a protest, and that because he did…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 226(c) — 6 cases
Cimarron Indus., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 621 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1980).
“Two questions are presented by this appeal: 1) Did the trial court have jurisdiction pursuant to 68 O.S.1971 § 226(c) 1 to deter *541 mine the amount of registration fees and penalties due because of the late registration of aircraft, and 2) Did the registration fee double after…”
Hamil v. Walker, 604 P.2d 377 (Okla. 1979).
“However, he took no action to initiate a jury trial in the Oklahoma County District Court, nor did he pay the tax under protest as required by 68 O.S.Supp.1978 § 226(b). 4 The Commission determined that the taxpayer’s letter was tantamount to a protest, and that because he did…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 226(d) — 2 cases
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.