R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-19-25 (2026)

Claims for refund — Hearing — Judicial review

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every claim for a refund shall be made in writing, in a form, and stating information that the tax administrator may require. Within thirty (30) days after disallowing any claim in whole or in part, the tax administrator shall give notice of his or her decision to the claimant. Any person aggrieved by the decision may, within thirty (30) days from the date of the mailing by the tax administrator of notice of the decision, request a hearing and the tax administrator shall, as soon as practicable, set a time and place for the hearing. After the hearing, if the taxpayer is aggrieved by the decision of the tax administrator, the taxpayer may petition the sixth (6th) division of the district court for relief from the decision of the tax administrator. No petition may be made under this section with respect to a re-determination as to which a petition has been made under § 44-19-18. The court shall proceed in the manner provided in §§ 44-19-18 and 44-19-19, and may confirm the decision of the tax administrator or order a refund or credit as provided in § 44-19-19. A party aggrieved by a final order of the court may seek review of the order in the supreme court by writ of certiorari in accordance with the procedures contained in § 42-35-16.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1981–2014 · leading case: WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Sullivan, 6 A.3d 1104 (R.I. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Sullivan, 6 A.3d 1104 (R.I. 2010). · cites it 3× “(WMS or petitioner), pursuant to G.L.1956 § 44-19-25, 2 to review a District Court judgment confirming the final decision and order of the respondent, the tax administrator of Rhode Island’s Division of Taxation (division).”
Capitol Bldg. Co. v. Langton, 221 A.2d 99 (R.I. 1981). “This petition is brought pursuant to the provisions of §44-19-25 and alleges that the tax was erroneously and illegally determined and collected.”
Ernest Barone v. State of Rhode Island, 93 A.3d 938 (R.I. 2014). · cites it 2× “1956 § 44-19-18 and § 44-19-25 to the Sixth Division District Court contemporaneously with his filing of the complaint in the present action in Superior Court.”
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.