5 Section 111.104(b) provides that “ tax refund claim may be filed with the comptroller by the person who paid the tax or by the person's attorney, assignee, or other successor.” Tex. Section 111.104(f) is a subsection of a scheme for seeking refund of certain taxes, including sales tax, set out in section 111.104 of the Tax Code. Section 111.104(f) provides that “o taxes, penalties, or interest may be refunded to a person who has collected the taxes from another person unless the person has refunded all the taxes and interest to the person from whom the taxes were collected.” Tex. Texas Ass'n of Business, 852 S.W.2d at 446 Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice v. The court of appeals must take the allegations in the petition as true and construe them in favor of the pleader. In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, a court may not weigh the claims' merits, but must consider only the plaintiffs' pleadings and the evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. When conducting a de novo review, the appellate court exercises its own judgment and redetermines each legal issue, giving no deference to the trial court's decision. Similarly, whether an agency has exclusive jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. Whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Here, Gallery challenged the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction through a plea to the jurisdiction. “The absence of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a plea to the jurisdiction, as well as by other procedural vehicles, such as a motion for summary judgment.” Bland Indep. The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts affirmatively showing that the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case. 3 Gallery argues, on the other hand, that the Texas Comptroller has exclusive jurisdiction to decide Burgess's tax refund claim. In her sole issue, Burgess argues that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether Gallery properly collected the MTA tax on purchases delivered outside the MTA area. The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction. In response, Gallery filed a plea to the jurisdiction, alleging that jurisdiction over Burgess's claim for a tax refund rests exclusively with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, but, in the event the comptroller denies relief, the courts of Travis county have jurisdiction. Burgess filed suit individually and on behalf of similarly situated customers, 1 alleging that Gallery improperly and illegally charged and collected an MTA tax. While retailers are required to collect MTA taxes, they are not authorized to collect MTA tax on purchases made inside an MTA area but delivered outside the MTA area. After collecting the taxes, Gallery is obligated to turn the proceeds over to the state.īurgess purchased furniture from Gallery, which delivered it to Burgess's residence, an area located outside the MTA area. Like other Houston retailers, Gallery collects state sales taxes and MTA taxes on items it sells. Gallery is engaged in the retail furniture business in Houston, Texas. Burgess presents one issue for our review: whether the trial court has jurisdiction over a suit by a consumer seeking to recover from a retailer payment of a Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority Tax (MTA) erroneously collected by the retailer. On appeal, we must determine whether the trial court properly granted a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellee, Gallery Model Homes, Inc. This appeal arises from a suit brought by appellant, Connie Burgess, to obtain a refund of overcharged sales tax. Craig Smyser, Justin McKenzie Waggoner, Smyser, Kaplan & Veselka, L.L.P., Blaine D. Sydow, Verner, Liipert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand, Houston, for appellant. Kormanik,Sydow, Kormanik, Carrigan & Eckerson, L.L.P., Micheal D. Panel consists of Justices HEDGES, KEYES and EVANS.* d/b/a Gallery Furniture and all Similarly Situated Retailers, Appellee. Court of Appeals of Texas,Houston (1st Dist.).Ĭonnie BURGESS, Individually and on Behalf of all Similarly Situated Consumers, Appellant, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |