The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a tax refund case involving Karen Kresevic and the City of Akron. The court ruled that Kresevic's request for a refund was barred by the statute of limitations, which requires taxpayers to act within a year of the tax being collected. This decision impacts Kresevic and potentially other taxpayers who may seek refunds from local governments.
The case, Kresevic v. Kimmel, C.A. No. 31616, originated when Kresevic, a former employee of Inpatient Medical Services, Inc., sought a refund for municipal income taxes she believed were improperly collected. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines when challenging tax collections.
Kresevic was employed at Akron City Hospital and paid municipal income taxes to the City of Akron for her earnings, even though she did not reside in the city. After her employment was terminated in July 2020, she reached a settlement with her employer in June 2021, which included a payment subject to municipal tax withholding. The City received the tax payment in July 2021.
In May 2022, Kresevic requested a refund of the municipal income tax withheld from her settlement payment. The City denied her request in July 2022, prompting Kresevic to file a complaint against the City on January 5, 2023. She argued that the tax collection was illegal under Ohio law.
The trial court, however, ruled in favor of the City, stating that Kresevic's claims were time-barred because she did not file her complaint within one year of the tax being collected. The court noted that Kresevic's request for a refund was her first communication regarding the tax, which was made almost a year after the City collected the tax.
Judge Scott Stevenson of the Ohio Court of Appeals wrote in the opinion, "The City of Akron collected the taxes at issue in this case in July 2021, more than one year prior to Ms. Kresevic filing her Complaint." The court affirmed that Kresevic's claims did not meet the statutory requirements outlined in R.C. 2723.01, which mandates that actions to recover taxes must be initiated within one year of the collection.
The court also addressed Kresevic's argument that she did not voluntarily pay the tax, stating that she failed to file a written protest or notice of intent to sue when the tax was collected. The court emphasized that the law requires taxpayers to follow specific procedures when contesting tax payments.
The ruling sets a clear precedent for future cases involving tax refund requests, reinforcing the necessity for taxpayers to act promptly and follow statutory guidelines. This decision may affect other taxpayers who believe they have been wrongly taxed, as it highlights the importance of timely action and proper legal procedures.
Looking ahead, Kresevic may consider appealing the decision to a higher court, although the chances of success could be limited given the clear statutory language and the court's interpretation. There are no related cases pending that would impact this ruling.