R.R. Tway, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
910 P.2d 972 | Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 1995
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
R.R. Tway, a construction contractor, paid sales taxes on materials for an Oklahoma Department of Transportation project and later sought refunds for both state and county taxes. The Oklahoma Tax Commission approved the state tax refund but denied the county refund and refused to make the county a party to the refund proceeding. The court upheld this decision, ruling the Tax Commission lacked authority to compel the county to participate and that Tway had missed the deadline to challenge the county taxes during the collection period.
Key Takeaways
- •File tax refund claims promptly during the collection period—waiting until after taxes are remitted to the county may bar your claim
- •Know which agency handles which taxes; the Tax Commission cannot force a county to defend its tax collection in refund proceedings
- •If you overpaid sales tax on contract materials, pursue refunds through the correct statutory process and within strict deadlines
Tax Commission may not compel Oklahoma County to appear absent express statutory authority.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I get a refund of county sales taxes I paid on construction materials if I file late?
Not if the county taxes have already been remitted to the county. You must file your refund claim during the collection period, before taxes are transferred. Once remitted, the Tax Commission cannot compel the county to participate in refund proceedings, leaving you without a remedy through that agency.
Related Cases
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.
Westech Engineering, Inc. v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc.
A subcontractor's equipment failed to meet contract specifications; the trial court properly found breach of contract and awarded damages for cover costs under UCC § 2-207 battle of the forms doctrine.