Texas Codes

Tex. Tax Code § 112.052 (2026)

Taxpayer Suit After Payment Under Protest

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 112.052. TAXPAYER SUIT AFTER PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST. (a) A person may bring suit against the state to recover a tax required to be paid to the state if the person has first paid the tax under protest as required by Section 112.051.

(b) A suit under this section must be brought before the 91st day after the date the protest payment was made, or the suit is barred.

(c) The state may bring a counterclaim in a suit brought under this section if the counterclaim relates to taxes imposed under the same statute and during the same period as the taxes that are the subject of the suit and if the counterclaim is filed not later than the 30th day before the date set for trial on the merits of the suit. The state is not required to make an assessment of the taxes subject to the counterclaim under any other statute, and the period of limitation applicable to an assessment of the taxes does not apply to a counterclaim brought under this subsection.

(d) A taxpayer shall produce sufficient records and supporting documentation appropriate to the tax for the transactions in question to substantiate and enable verification of a taxpayer's claim relating to the amount of the tax, penalty, or interest that has been assessed or collected or will be refunded, as required by Section 111.0041.

Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1512, ch. 389, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1373, ch. 283, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 232, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 486, Sec. 7.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., 1st C.S., Ch. 4 (S.B. 1), Sec. 4.03, eff. October 1, 2011.

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 331 (H.B. 2080), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2021.

Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 138 (S.B. 266), Sec. 4, eff. May 24, 2025.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 59 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Tgs-nopec Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tgs-nopec Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011). “See Tex. Tax Code § 112.052(a) (requiring taxpayer to pay contested taxes as a predicate to filing suit).”

In Re Nestle USA, Inc., Switchplace, LLC, & Nsbma, Lp, 359 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. 2012). · cites it 2× “Tex. Tax Code §§ 112.052, 112.101, and 112.”

Hegar v. Autohaus LP, 514 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “OPINION Melissa Goodwin, Justice Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, 1 appeal from the final judgment in favor of Autohaus LP, LLP in this franchise tax protest suit, see Tex. Tax Code §…”

USA Waste Servs. of Houston, Inc. v. Strayhorn, 150 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App. 2004). “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.052 (West 2002) (suit after payment under protest).”

Hegar v. EBS Solutions, Inc., 549 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App. 2018). “See Tex. Tax Code §§ 112.052., .101. In response, the Comptroller filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting that the suit should be dismissed because EBS did not comply with "the statutory jurisdictional requirements" before filing suit.”

Rylander v. Palais Royal, Inc., 81 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.052 (West 2001).”

Strayhorn v. Lexington Ins. Co., 128 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App. 2004). “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.052 (b). Thus, concludes the Comptroller, the Insurers did not comply with the mandatory and exclusive administrative remedies required under the tax code, and the district court did not have jurisdiction over these causes.”

Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App. 2000). “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.052 (West 1992); Contran Corp.”

Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Combs, 270 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. App. 2008). “Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.052 (a) (Vernon 2008).”

Cornyn v. Universe Life Ins. Co., 988 S.W.2d 376 (Tex. App. 1999). “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. §§ 112.052 (a), .054 (West 1992 & Supp.”

Bullock v. Marathon Oil Co., 798 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. App. 1990). “Tex. Tax Code Ann. §§ 112.052 and 112.-053.”

Tgs-nopec Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 268 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App. 2008). “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.052 (West 2008).”

Show all 59 citing cases →

— Tex. Tax Code § 112.052(a) — 5 cases

Tgs-nopec Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011). “See Tex. Tax Code § 112.052(a) (requiring taxpayer to pay contested taxes as a predicate to filing suit).”

In Re Nestle USA, Inc., Switchplace, LLC, & Nsbma, Lp, 359 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. 2012). “Tex. Tax Code §§ 112.052, 112.101, and 112.”

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas, & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. Mahindra USA, Inc. (Tex. App. 2020).

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. Statewide Materials Transp., Ltd. (Tex. App. 2015).

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas, & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. Black, Mann, & Graham, L.L.P. (Tex. App. 2022).

— Tex. Tax Code § 112.052(b) — 2 cases

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. 1st Global, Inc.. P1 (Tex. App. 2019).

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. Statewide Materials Transp., Ltd. (Tex. App. 2015).

— Tex. Tax Code § 112.052(d) — 3 cases

U.S. Concrete, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts, State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of Texas, 578 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. App. 2019).

L.L.C., Inc. & Fun Holdings, LLC v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023).

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas, & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. CGG Veritas Servs. (U.S.), Inc. (Tex. App. 2015).

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.