Could California reconsider a denied refund claim after the taxpayer let the 90-day deadline for filing a refund lawsuit expire?

Plain-English summary

The Board could not reconsider the taxpayer's refund matter after the taxpayer failed to file a refund lawsuit within 90 days after the denial notice was mailed.

The refund claim had been denied on September 10, 1990. Applying Revenue and Taxation Code section 6933, the memorandum concluded that the Board lost jurisdiction on or about December 10, 1990.

Whether the underlying transaction qualified as a sale for resale no longer mattered to that procedural conclusion. The memorandum acknowledged that a limitations rule can produce a harsh result even if tax was not actually due, but said its purpose was to prevent stale claims and require timely substantiation.

Common questions

How long did the taxpayer have to file suit after the refund denial?

Ninety days after mailing of the denial notice under the statute applied by the memorandum.

Could the Board decide whether the transaction was a sale for resale after that deadline?

No. The memorandum treated that merits question as irrelevant once jurisdiction had ended.

Did the source decide whether the tax was properly due?

No.

Citations and references

• California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6933 — 90-day period for filing a refund lawsuit after mailing of the claim-denial notice

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/465-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/465-0210-150.pdf

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

Mr. Mike Hilbert
Audit Review and Refund Section

From:

Gary J. Jugum
Assistant Chief Counsel

Subject:

F--- C---, Inc.
SS -- XX-XXXXXX-001

465.0210.150

Date:

September 27, 1991

This is in response to your memorandum of August 22, 1991. The facts are set out in your memorandum. You are absolutely correct. The Board has no further jurisdiction to hear this matter. The claim for refund was denied on September 10, 1990. The taxpayer had 90 days after the mailing of the notice to file a suit for refund under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 6933. The Board lost jurisdiction on or about December 10, 1990. The transaction may or may not have been a sale for resale; however, that is irrelevant. The limitation provision always works harshly, if, in fact, the tax was not properly due. The purpose of the limitation provision is to prevent stale claims and to require the taxpayer to come forward in a timely manner with substantiation to support claims of overpayment.

GJJ:wk
3345C