Connecticut Refuses to Reimburse Businesses For Ordered Tax Refunds
December 12, 2007
Retailers in 45 states have the responsibility to collect sales taxes on most purchases made to consumers. In Connecticut, for instance, a consumer buying a new car must pay sales tax on the purchase price to the dealer, who then forwards the money to the state.
If a consumer returns the purchased item to the store, they are refunded the full cost, including the sales tax they paid. The retailer can then claim a refund of the sales tax money forwarded to the state, because the transaction has been cancelled.
Connecticut law requires that if car dealers sell a “lemon” to consumers (a defective vehicle that cannot be repaired), the consumer can return it and be refunded the full purchase price, including sales tax paid plus costs incurred. DaimlerChrysler, an auto manufacturer, did so and then applied to the state for a refund of the tax money that had been forwarded. Connecticut refused, and this week, the state supreme court upheld the refusal in DaimlerChrysler v. Law (No. 17892) (Ct. Dec. 18, 2007).
DaimlerChrysler was not seeking a windfall, but rather reimbursement for returning cancelled sales tax collections to consumers. The court denied this equitable relief, but the real problem is that the statute only allows tax refund claims to be filed by “taxpayers,” and DaimlerChrysler merely collected and forwarded the tax.
So, Connecticut law requires that businesses forward sales tax revenue to the state, then refund the money to consumers. Perhaps DaimlerChrysler should re-file the suit because they are clearly paying the tax now—there’s no one else left.
Connecticut’s Attorney General just about admits that the decision creates a windfall for consumers by punishing businesses who comply with the law:
“Reimbursing sales tax to a manufacturer for a defective car would be giving undeserved lemonade for a lemon,” [Richard] Blumenthal said. “Returning money that a consumer paid to the state would undermine the entire purpose of our state’s lemon law.”
If Connecticut wants to punish the sale of defective cars, they should write it into the criminal code or fine companies after a fair hearing. Forcing businesses to pay tax refunds, and then refusing to reimburse businesses for them is bad tax policy and creates business uncertainty in Connecticut.
Home Depot faces a similar case in Rhode Island, involving sales taxes forwarded to the state on transactions with consumers later cancelled because they stop making payments on their Home Depot credit cards.
Was this page helpful to you?
The Tax Foundation works hard to provide insightful tax policy analysis. Our work depends on support from members of the public like you. Would you consider contributing to our work?Contribute to the Tax Foundation
Let us know how we can better serve you!
We work hard to make our analysis as useful as possible. Would you consider telling us more about how we can do better?Give Us Feedback