Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

Chapter 22008, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1943. (Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, 1941, Sup., and F.S.A.)

...Florida courts are also given power to issue declaratory and injunctive relief in tax cases. See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 72.011 (West Supp. 1988) and § 86.011 (West 1987). Furthermore, a Florida taxpayer has the statutory right to seek a tax refund from the state. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 215.26 (West 1971). The Florida Supreme Court has held that this statute (§ 215.26) authorizes the refund of taxes paid under an unconstitutional law....

...The defect in the title has now been cured by the enactment of Chapter 26484, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1951. The taxes paid by the relator and in question in this suit amounted to $5,261.68 and covered the period of time from November 1, 1949, and April 25, 1951. F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A....

...In the case of Commonwealth v. Sammons, 180 Ky. 403, 202 S.W. 885, the Kentucky Court held that a cause of action accrues when the party has the right and *562 capacity to sue and is not suspended until he ascertains that he has a cause of action. F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A., is not, strictly speaking, a statute of limitations but is more in the nature of a statute of non-claim....

...The Comptroller contested the claim on the ground that it was not filed with him within one year after the right to such refund shall have accrued. This Court then held: "* * * it appears that the relator's [taxpayer's] rights have been barred by the limitations provided by Section 215.26, F.S.A." A motion for peremptory writ was denied and the respondent discharged in that case....

...The effect of the opinion in *564 this second Butler case was that the right to a refund of taxes illegally paid accrued when the taxes were paid. The case of State ex rel. Tampa Electric Co. v. Gay, Fla., 40 So.2d 225, 227, appears to be the most recent holding by this Court that the right to refund is barred under F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A., unless a claim is filed with the Comptroller within one year from the date of payment....

...h the Comptroller of the State of Florida as required by statute. Wherefore, relator is barred of the right of refund thereof.'" This Court said: "One of the questions presented is whether the quoted statutory limitations on nonclaim as contained in Section 215.26, supra, are applicable against petitioner and available to the Comptroller. If not, there is no limitation of non-claim under the circumstances presented. "The limitations of Section 215.26 have been held to avail the Comptroller against claims for refund of chain store taxes. See State ex rel. Butler's, Inc., v. Gay, 158 Fla. 164, 165, 27 So.2d 907; Id., 158 Fla. 500, 29 So.2d 246. "Section 215.26, supra, is not of a general application but one in relation to claims against the Comptroller....

...s, is barred by the statute." The net result of the opinion was to apply the non-claim statute to the payment made on September 26, 1946, with respect to the 1946 taxes and bar the claim because no claim for refund had been filed as required by F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A., and to order a refund of a tax payment made on February 9, 1948....

...paid, but that two separate suits were unnecessary and the entire matter could be settled in one proceeding. There have been many suits in Florida to determine the validity of a tax and to direct the making of a refund by the Comptroller under F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A., such as State ex rel....

...rrect proceedings to determine the validity of the tax. It failed to file any claim or take any action within one year of the time of the payment which is the time of the accrual of the right in this case and the claim involved is now barred by F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A. The return of the respondent, alleging that F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A....

...that the petitioner's claim for the refund of taxes paid on or about September 26, 1946, with respect to the 1946 issue of bonds, is barred by the statute" in disposing of the question whether the statutory limitation of non-claim contained in F.S. Section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes Annotated, is applicable "against petitioner and available to the Comptroller"....

...tive act is susceptible of more than one meaning, it becomes the duty of the court under established law to adopt that interpretation or construction which is most favorable to the taxpayer. Obviously the least that can be said is that the clause in Section 215.26, supra, under consideration herein is susceptible of two meanings....

...ass pursuant to such assessments. They appeal a summary judgment for appellees granted on the sole ground that the Comptroller's decision to deny a refund of the taxes in an administrative proceeding prosecuted by Florida Export pursuant to sections 215.26, 120.57, and 120.68, Florida Statutes (1979), is res judicata and bars this action in circuit court....

...fit participation charge and demanded refund of all such taxes previously paid. [2] DOR moved to dismiss the complaints on grounds that plaintiffs failed to exhaust available administrative remedies by not seeking a refund from the Comptroller under section 215.26. [3] The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend "with sufficient time allowed to satisfy the requirements of § 215.26, Fla....

...Prior to 1963, the Comptroller was given complete authority to administer the various state tax statutes, including sales taxes under chapter 212, and to collect the revenues due pursuant to such statutes. [11] The Comptroller also was given authority under section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1961), to approve the refund of taxes upon a timely sworn application in proper form, "supplemented with such additional proof as is necessary to establish such claim." In 1963 the legislature transferred the duties...

...the right to request the Commission to reexamine the assessment. If the Commission's decision was determined adversely to the taxpayer, then the taxpayer had the right to bring an action in circuit court to challenge the legality of the assessment. Section 215.26, however, continued to provide the Comptroller with authority to pay refunds....

...ourt. Ch. 69-106, §§ 21, 35, Laws of Florida. Certain portions of the 1969 amendments remained in effect at the time of this dispute. See §§ 213.05 and 212.18(2), Fla. Stat. (1979). The statutory authority of the Comptroller to pay refunds under section 215.26 was not altered by the 1969 act....

...78-95, Laws of Florida. In the introductory clause to that law, it was stated that section 212.15(4) was in conflict with or had been rendered unnecessary by the Administrative Procedures Act, chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The legislature also amended section *945 215.26, Florida Statutes, to read as quoted in note 3, supra. [12] This amendment to section 215.26 clarified the respective roles of DOR and the Comptroller in the administration of the sales tax statutes and applications for refunds....

...he tax (DOR in this instance). Upon receipt of such application, however, only the agency to which the tax had been paid (DOR) was empowered to determine the amount of the tax and authorize a refund. The Comptroller continued to have authority under section 215.26 to refund taxes paid with monies from the state treasury, but only upon DOR's approval manifested in a properly executed voucher authorizing such payment....

...e authority of the Comptroller and DOR leads us to conclude that in 1979 the Comptroller had no administrative power to review and adjudicate the legality of tax assessments made by DOR under chapter 212. That administrative power lay only with DOR. Section 215.26 vested authority in the Comptroller to order disbursement of funds from the state treasury only after DOR, the state agency charged with administering the sales tax statute, recommended a refund and furnished a voucher to the Comptroll...

...However, the Comptroller has the legal right to refuse to be a party to a disbursement of public funds which he considers illegal until there has been a judicial determination of the validity of the proposed expenditure. 229 So.2d at 8 (emphasis added.) To summarize, according to the explicit terms of section 215.26, DOR was required to review applications for tax refunds and determine the legality of its assessment....

...the disputed assessment by evaluating the facts and law and substituting his own judgment for the legal reasons relied upon by DOR in authorizing or denying the requested refund. In this case appellants applied to the Comptroller for a refund under section 215.26 on grounds that sales taxes could not be legally assessed on the profit participation charges....

...of any tax assessment," that the authority of an agency to handle contests of tax assessments, which were no longer outstanding, because they had been extinguished by payment, required any additional general legislation other than that authorized by Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, conferring on the Comptroller the jurisdiction to entertain tax refund applications. For many years preceding the adoption of the 1972 constitutional amendment to the jurisdictional powers of circuit courts, section 215.26, first enacted by Chapter 22008, § 1, Laws of Florida (1943), had empowered the Comptroller to make a determination of whether to grant a taxpayer's application for a refund in instances "where no tax ......

...by general law consistent with other provisions of Article V, they must have reasonably taken into consideration the customary practice which the Comptroller had assumed for nearly thirty years in the handling of applications for refunds pursuant to Section 215.26, Florida Statutes....

...We have recognized that an express grant of power to an agency will be deemed to include such powers as are necessarily or reasonably incident to the powers expressly granted. Hall v. Career Service Commission, 478 So.2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Since the Comptroller has discretionary authority under Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, to grant a refund to a taxpayer where no tax is due, conversely he has the concomitant authority to deny a refund where the tax is due....

...Swan, Administrative Adjudication of Constitutional Questions: Confusion in Florida Law and a Dying Misconception in Federal Law, 33 U.Miami L.Rev. 527, 537 (1979). I also have no problem with the failure of the Department of Revenue to be named as a party to the 120.57 hearing. The amendment to Section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes, by Chapter 78-352, Section 2, Laws of Florida, permitting the Comptroller to delegate the authority to accept an application for refund to DOR does not, as suggested by the majority, place such administrative powe...

...y to review and adjudicate the substantive legality of the tax, by substituting his own judgment in place of the legal reasons relied upon by DOR in authorizing or denying a refund. The Comptroller's authority to delegate is, by the express terms of Section 215.26(2), permissive....

...In the instant case the taxpayers' refund application was first referred to DOR, which, after having reviewed the application, determined that the refund should not be paid. Although DOR was not made a party to the subsequent 120.57 proceeding, it was, neither under the provisions of Section 215.26, nor under Chapter 120, a necessary and indispensable party to that proceeding — one whose joinder is so essential that a tribunal cannot proceed to a final determination. 39 Fla.Jur.2d, Parties § 7 (1982). An application for refund of taxes, filed pursuant to section 215.26, is made to the Comptroller — not the Department of Revenue....

...Export's action (R. 35, 38-42). The record on appeal contains only Florida Export's complaint; however, based on the circuit court's consolidation and certification of the class, we assume that all complaints raised substantially similar issues. [3] Section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1979), states, in pertinent part: (1) The Comptroller of the state may refund to the person who paid same ......

...Upon approval of an application for refund, such state agency shall furnish the Comptroller with a properly executed voucher authorizing payment. (Emphasis added.) [4] Appellants have not questioned the court's requirement that they seek a refund from the Comptroller under section 215.26 before proceeding with the circuit court action....

...1963); State v. Gay, 74 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1954). [5] Appellants allege in their amended complaint that they applied to the Comptroller for a refund, but the record is unclear whether the refund application was actually sent to the office of the Comptroller or DOR. Section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Comptroller to delegate to another agency authority to accept and process applications for the refund of taxes it administers....

...[10] The tax due must be separately stated by the lessor, is a debt from the lessee to the lessor, and cannot be absorbed by the lessor. Rule 12A-1.086, Fla.Adm.Code. [11] See, e.g., sections 192.31, 195.07, 196.14, 198.05, 199.03, 201.11, 208.49, 212.15, Florida Statutes (1961). [12] The changes to section 215.26 were as follows (additions are underscored, deletions lined through); (2) Application for refunds as provided by this section shall be filed with the Comptroller, except as otherwise provided herein, within 3 years after the right to such refund shall have accrued else such right shall be barred....

...McKesson argues that only a refund of the difference between the disfavored product's tax rate and the favored product's tax rate will cure the constitutional injury which it has suffered. It maintains that *1010 because it has paid the discriminatory taxes under protest, pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1985), it is entitled to a refund under both state and federal law....

...ts of 1935, and there is hereby appropriated a sufficient amount from the funds collected under this chapter for the comptroller to refund any such overpayment when and if on proper application and proof he deems it necessary to make such refund.” Section 215.26, Florida Statutes 1941, effective June 10, 1943, is also pertinent to the issue raised and is as follows: Section 1....

...yment should be made on the Comptroller and that the suit was barred by the Statute of Limitations, Section 95.11 (5E), Florida Statutes 1941. We do not think a renewal of the application for refund was necessary, provided it met the requirements of Section 215.26, as quoted; neither do we think Section 95.11, Florida Statutes 1941, is applicable to a claim of this kind....

...The Department appealed the circuit court's order granting certification to the First District Court of Appeal. The Department argued that the circuit court had improperly exercised jurisdiction over the case because petitioners had failed to comply with the requirements of section 215.26 Florida Statutes (1995), which requires the filing of an administrative claim before bringing an action in circuit court. [3] The Department also argued that this Court's decision in Nemeth, which allows a taxpayer to file directly in circuit court without filing an administrative claim pursuant to section 215.26, was inapplicable to the instant case, because petitioners' claim involved an as-applied challenge rather than a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute....

...of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Sarnoff, 776 So.2d 976, 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The First District found that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over count I of petitioners' amended complaint because they had failed to seek relief from the Comptroller pursuant to section 215.26. [4] The First District recognized that Department of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So.2d 970 (Fla. 1999), provided a direct file exception to *354 section 215.26....

...nged the constitutionality of a statute imposing an impact fee on a certain class of automobiles. This Court expressly held in Nemeth: [A] Florida taxpayer may file directly in the appropriate court without filing an administrative claim pursuant to section 215.26 if the sole basis for the refund is that the tax is unconstitutional....

...the claim with the Comptroller would be a futile act. See id. at 974 (emphasis added). However, this Court explained that a taxpayer qualifying for the direct-file exception is still required to file suit within three years of payment as required by section 215.26(2)....

...sing an impact fee on cars purchased or titled in other states by individuals later establishing permanent residency in Florida. The State argued that the petitioners should be denied relief because they had failed to comply with the requirements of section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1993). The Court rejected this argument and, since the parties had raised a challenge to a facially unconstitutional statute, it held there was no need to request a refund pursuant to section 215.26....

...1st DCA 1980) (holding that parents seeking to challenge the department's rule which required the child of a married couple to be registered under the father's surname must first exhaust administrative procedures before filing an action in court). Petitioners contend that section 215.26 does not permit the Comptroller to give a refund outside of the conditions detailed in the statute. Section 215.26 provides the mechanism for receiving a refund from the State....

...for the Comptroller to refuse to grant a refund. See Estate of W.T. Grant Co. v. Lewis, 358 So.2d 76, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), aff'd, 370 So.2d 764 (Fla.1979). Petitioners argue that it would be futile to seek relief from the Comptroller pursuant to section 215.26, because the statute does not specifically give the Comptroller the power to give a refund where the basis claimed for the refund is that the agency rule setting the fee is unconstitutional....

...nspected frozen meat entering the State of Florida and to charge a fee for such inspections. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Hygrade, and the board sought review. The board argued that because Hygrade had failed to comply with section 215.26, its claim was barred. Hygrade countered, arguing that the exhaustion of administrative remedies pursuant to section 215.26 was not required because the statute was inapplicable to refunds of monies paid as inspection fees....

...a willingness to rectify the error was manifested. Id. at 538. The court further noted that the statute provided for the refund of such fees, because the fees constituted a payment made into the state treasury by error. We agree with this reasoning. Section 215.26 does permit the Comptroller to give a refund of inspection fees paid pursuant to an agency rule that improperly implements a statutory provision, because such fees constitute payment made into the state treasury by error....

...If the party does not receive full relief through the administrative process, the individual may file suit in court. Although this Court made no distinction between facial and as-applied claims in Nemeth, that decision is based upon the futility of requiring a taxpayer to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant section 215.26 where a refund claim is based on the facial unconstitutionality of a statute....

...be presented to the court, it is pointless to require the parties to endure the time and expense of administrative proceedings. See Key Haven, 427 So.2d at 157. However, the Nemeth decision in no way eliminated the administrative process outlined in section 215.26....

...omply with the requirements of the refund statute. See Nemeth, 733 So.2d at 975 n. 6. Here, petitioners' claim involves a challenge to an agency rule. Therefore, petitioners' failure to file a request for a refund with the Comptroller as required by section 215.26 bars their right to seek a refund under count I of the amended complaint. CONCLUSION We therefore hold that the direct-file exception created by this Court in Nemeth and Kuhnlein is available only when a taxpayer is seeking a refund pursuant to section 215.26, and the sole basis claimed for the refund is that the statute imposing the tax or fee is facially unconstitutional....

...(b) The emissions inspection fee to be charged by a government self-inspector authorized by the department to inspect motor vehicles owned by other government agencies is $5 per inspection. The fee shall be collected by the government self-inspector for the initial inspection and every even numbered reinspection. [3] Section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1995), provided in relevant part: (1) The Comptroller of the state may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, or assigns, any moneys paid into the State Treasury which cons...

...ve procedures. [6] Petitioners contend that the actual amount for each inspection ranged from $5.90 to $8.50 per vehicle. Petitioners estimate that the cost of administration and enforcement to the Department was $0.40 per vehicle. [7] Additionally, section 215.26 does contemplate the right of a taxpayer to seek a refund where the refund is based upon a challenge to an agency rule. Section 215.26(2) provides: The Comptroller may delegate the authority to accept an application for refund to any state agency, or the judicial branch, vested by law with the responsibility for the collection of any tax, license, or account due....

...ablish the claim; provided, the claim is not otherwise barred under the laws of this state. Upon receipt of an application for refund, the judicial branch or the state agency to which the funds were paid shall make a determination of the amount due. § 215.26, Fla....

...' Relator now seeks by mandamus to compel repayment upon the claim that its corporate fiscal year controls and not the calendar year. The respondent answers and relies upon the statutes as fixing the fiscal year of the relator for tax purposes and denies that relator has complied with Section 215.26 Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., (Chapter 22008, Acts 1943) relating to repayment of overpayment of taxes....

...35, and there is hereby appropriated a sufficient amount from the funds collected under this chapter for the comptroller to refund any such overpayment when and if on proper application and proof he deems it necessary to make such refund.” — and section 215.26 Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A....

...ally stated in the law; that the Comptroller is limited in the collection of the delinquent taxes against the relator by section 205.12 Florida Statutes 1941, and that he is authorized to repay any taxes wrongfully enacted when relator complies with section 215.26(2) Florida Statutes 1941 and files his claims within the limitation of one year therein specified. With these observations and conclusions as a controlling guide it may be that the Comptroller and the relator can adjust relator’s claim. Since respondent’s answer denies compliance with section 215.26 Florida Statutes 1941 we are not able fully to determine relator’s rights....

...refund shall have accrued prior to June 10, 1943, then such claimant shall have the period of one year from said date to file such claim; provided, such claim is not otherwise barred under the laws of this state. Laws 1943, c. 22008, § 1." Sec. 215.26 (1) (a), (b), (c), (2), F.S. 1941, F.S.A., (Cum.Supp.) One of the questions presented is whether the quoted statutory limitations on non-claim as contained in Section 215.26 , supra, are applicable against petitioner and available to the Comptroller. If not, there is no limitation of non-claim under the circumstances presented. The limitations of Section 215.26 have been held to avail the Comptroller against claims for refund of chain store taxes. See State ex rel. Butler's, Inc., v. C.M. Gay, 158 Fla. 164 , 165, 27 So.2d 907 ; Id., 158 Fla. 500 , 29 So.2d 246 . Section 215.26 , supra, is not of a general application but one in relation to claims against the Comptroller....

...KUHNLEIN, 646 So.2d 717 (Fla.1994), OVERRULED OR RECEDED FROM STATE EX REL. VICTOR CHEMICAL WORKS V. GAY, 74 So.2d 560 (Fla.1954), TO THE EXTENT THAT VICTOR CHEMICAL HOLDS THAT THE RIGHT TO A REFUND OF TAXES IS BARRED IF THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MAKE A TIMELY CLAIM FOR REFUND AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 215.26, FLORIDA STATUTES? Id....

...the appropriate court rather than with the Comptroller. However, because respondents Judith and Donald Nemeth [1] (Nemeths) failed to file suit challenging the constitutionality of section 320.072(1)(b) within the three-year time limit prescribed by section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), we quash the district court's decision reversing the trial court's order of dismissal with prejudice....

...p.1990). [2] The Nemeths also sought a refund from the Department of Revenue (DOR), the petitioner in this case, for the taxes paid pursuant to the statute. DOR filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the Nemeths failed to comply with section 215.26....

...Relying on this Court's decision in Victor Chemical, DOR contended that the Nemeths had not filed for a refund with the Comptroller or its agent, and consequently the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Additionally, DOR alleged that pursuant to section 215.26(2), the Nemeths could no longer seek a refund from the Comptroller because more than three years had elapsed since the date of each respondent's payment. Section 215.26(2) requires a taxpayer to file an application for a refund within three years after the right to such refund accrues. [3] Under Victor Chemical, the right to the refund accrued on the date the Nemeths paid the tax. 74 So.2d at 562. The trial court in this case dismissed the complaint [4] for failure to allege a timely claim for refund as required by section 215.26(2). The trial court reasoned: In my view, [section] 215.26 Fla. Stat. must be considered in light of State ex rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay, 74 So.2d 560 (Fla.1954). Of course that court dealt with a prior version of Section 215.26 and the facts involved the failure to file an application for a refund. In Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717 (Fla.1994), Florida's Supreme Court discounted the necessity to file a formal refund application. Nonetheless, Kuhnlein did not overrule Victor Chemical 's decision that 215.26(2) was a non-claim statute....

...Nemeth, 686 So.2d at 778-79. On appeal, the district court reversed and remanded based on our decision in Kuhnlein. The district court held that Victor Chemical, which barred a taxpayer's claim because the taxpayer failed to satisfy the requirements of a prior version of section 215.26, was not applicable to the instant case in light of Kuhnlein....

...Nemeth, 686 So.2d at 780. LAW AND ANALYSIS Like the trial court and district court in this case, Florida's district courts appear to be in disagreement over whether Kuhnlein altered the decision in Victor Chemical and, consequently, the refund process established by section 215.26....

...refund before filing suit for a refund. See Nemeth; Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff, 689 So.2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Other courts have held in accord with Victor Chemical that a taxpayer must file a claim for a refund pursuant to section 215.26 before invoking the jurisdiction of the court....

...e. At bottom, the most significant distinction is that the plaintiffs in Kuhnlein, unlike the plaintiffs in Victor Chemical, challenged the constitutionality of an involuntarily paid tax within the time limits prescribed by the applicable version of section 215.26, Florida Statutes. In Victor Chemical, a taxpayer brought a mandamus action seeking a refund of taxes that had been voluntarily paid under a statute that had been held invalid in a prior decision. 74 So.2d at 561. We held that the taxpayer's right to a refund under section 215.26 accrued upon payment of the tax rather than at the time the tax was declared illegal. Id. at 562. Therefore, we found the claim barred because the taxpayer failed to file for a refund with the Comptroller within one year of the payment as provided for in the controlling version of section 215.26. Id. at 565. On the other hand, in Kuhnlein we rejected DOR's argument that class members could not seek a refund of a vehicle impact fee because they failed to comply with the requirements in section 215.26....

...refund. Id. at 721. Our decision established that in cases where the plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality of an involuntarily paid tax and seeking a refund for the same the taxpayer need not comply with the "administrative" requirements in section 215.26. Id. However, while our decision did not squarely address or extend to the time requirements in section 215.26(2), nonetheless the class members there sought a refund within the mandated three-year period....

...Here, the class members did not. Future Claims In order to avoid the recurrence of this issue in similar situations in the future, [5] *974 we expressly hold that a Florida taxpayer may file directly in the appropriate court without filing an administrative claim pursuant to section 215.26 if the sole basis claimed for the refund is that the tax is unconstitutional....

...ax is unconstitutional, to file the claim with the Comptroller would be a futile act. [6] The claim based solely upon the constitutionality of the tax must be commenced by filing in the appropriate court [7] within the time requirements set forth in section 215.26(2), that is, "within 3 years after the right to refund has accrued." Our holding in Kuhnlein did not eliminate the need to comply with the time requirements in section 215.26. Instead, we merely found that meeting the administrative requirements of section 215.26 was unnecessary....

...646 So.2d at 720. Therefore, we now explicitly hold that a plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of a tax statute and seeking a refund, while not required to file with the Comptroller, must still file suit within three years of payment as required by section 215.26(2). [8] We recognize that our holding appears to conflict with section 215.26(4), which provides that the statute is "the exclusive procedure and remedy for refund claims between individual funds and accounts in the State Treasury." However, we find no inconsistency because the statute is only the exclusive remedy for tax refunds which the Comptroller is actually empowered to make, such as refunds for overpayment, section 215.26(1)(a); when no tax is due, section 215.26(1)(b); or for payments made in error, section 215.26(1)(c); but not for taxes that might violate the constitution. Federal Due Process Requirements When the requirements outlined above are met, as they were in Kuhnlein, we conclude that the failure to comply with the "administrative" prerequisites of section 215.26 does not preclude the action....

...ef or a clear and certain remedy when they place taxpayers under duress to pay a tax ultimately found unconstitutional. McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18, 31, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990). We find that section 215.26 provides adequate post-deprivation relief so as to comport with federal due process standards. We reach this conclusion primarily because McKesson refers to section 215.26 as an example of a statute that imposes permissible procedural requirements on post-deprivation relief. 496 U.S. at 45 n. 28; see also Newsweek, Inc. v. Florida Department of Revenue, 522 U.S. 442, 118 S.Ct. 904, 905, 139 L.Ed.2d 888 (1998) (noting that Court has interpreted section 215.26 as providing "a postpayment remedy"). Additionally, the Court recognized in Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106, 115 S.Ct. 547, 130 L.Ed.2d 454 (1994), that Georgia's tax refund statute, [9] which is similar to section 215.26, provided a clear and certain post-deprivation remedy....

...Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717 (Fla.1994). [3] "Application for refunds as provided by this section must be filed with the Comptroller, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, within 3 years after the right to the refund has accrued or else the right is barred." § 215.26(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). [4] The trial court initially dismissed the Nemeths' complaint without prejudice based on section 215.26 and Victor Chemical....

...f great public importance or likely to recur"); Rivera v. Singletary, 707 So.2d 326, 327 n. 6 (Fla.1998) (same); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 223 n. 1 (Fla.1984) (same). [6] If the refund is claimed on any other basis, there must be compliance with section 215.26, and this decision in no way alters that requirement....

...ollected must proceed within the three-year limitation period prescribed in Sec. 95.11(5)(e)." Although dealing with Florida's statute of limitations, section 95.11, in reaching our decision, we cited approvingly the First District's construction of section 215.26 in Florida Livestock Board v....

...d paid a total of $73.63 on such Agreements for Deed pursuant to the requirements of Section 199.032(1). [1972 — $43,043, 1973 — $30,590, Total Amount — $73,633] Thereafter Relator filed its application for refund pursuant to Sections 199.252 and 215.26, Florida Statutes, and advised the Department of Revenue that the $73,633.00 of intangible personal property assessment was predicated on the Agreements for Deed and that, therefore, no tax was due and owing inasmuch as the same constituted in...

..."The only section in Chapter 198, supra, that appears pertinent to the present case, Sec. 198.29, provides for refund of overpayment and overpayment of interest `thereon' but it is silent about payment to the taxpayer by the Comptroller of interest on the tax. "At the suggestion of the petitioners we have examined also Sec. 215.26, Florida Statutes 1943, and F.S.A., a part of the chapter dealing with `Financial Matters, Generally' and here we have found no provision for payment of interest on refunded taxes....

...etitioners. The matter was simply in suspense, pending settlement by a court of a dispute to which the state was not directly but only vicariously interested." See also: Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corp., 155 So.2d 387 (Fla.App.2, 1963). Neither Section 215.26 nor Section 199.252, Florida Statutes, pursuant to which relator seeks refund, provide for the payment of interest, and we find that Relator is not entitled to interest on the refund sought sub judice....

...n a year from the effective date of Chapter 20977 (6-41) for refund of prior payments, nor were any claims filed with the Comptroller “within one year after the right to such refund shall have accrued” for subsequent payments as provided by Sec. 215.26 F.S.A....

...It does not appear that relator’s claim is for (a) an overpayment of any tax, license or account due; (b) a payment where no tax, license or account was due; or (c) any payment made into the state treasury in error; and it appears that the relator’s rights have been barred by the limitations provided by Section 215.26 F.S.A....

...ed by the United States. Second, the Trustee's claims in the Complaint are not "refund" claims. Under both federal and Florida law a refund claim is a claim for the return of taxes alleged to be not properly due. See 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); Fla. Stat. § 215.26....

...ation of the tax law. The incongruity of the Department's position is apparent when it is considered that while the Department has five or more years to audit and assess, the taxpayer has only three years within which to seek a refund. Section *1129 215.26, Florida Statutes....

...The most recent expression of the Legislature in regard to the Department's audit and assessment procedures strongly undermines the Department's position in this case. Section 213.34(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), provides as follows: 213.34 Authority to audit. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 215.26, the department shall offset the overpayment of any tax during an audit period against a deficiency of any tax, penalty, or interest determined to be due during the same audit period....

...[5] Here, although there was no audit of an alleged overpayment of insurance premium taxes in the audit period under review, *1130 we are of the view that this omission works against the Department, rather than against the taxpayer. By reference to section 215.26, the language of section 213.34(4) appears to place a responsibility upon the state, through its departments and officials, correctly and timely to determine the tax burden falling upon the taxpayer, over and above its responsibilities in merely responding to claims for a refund....

...With all the procedural matters seemingly in place, Dean & Dean and IDS commenced making payments to Daystar, the landlord. In collecting the payments, Daystar imposed the sales tax required by section 212.031 and subsequently remitted it to the Department. In June 1996, however, Daystar sought a refund pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes and rule 12-1.070(19)(c), for the portion of Dean & Dean's sales tax it remitted to the Department....

...cation, that set forth the terms of its guaranty of Dean & Dean's outstanding debt. The Department, besides arguing that Daystar was not equally liable on the debt, asserted that Daystar did not have standing to seek the refund under the language of section 215.26, because Dean & Dean was the party entitled to seek the refund....

...Sofka, 702 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Fla.1997). As the cases above reflect, the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter is never waived. The Department is correct in its assertion that Daystar lacked standing to commence the refund action in the instant appeal. Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, provides that a refund may be paid only to the person who paid the tax, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, or assignees....

...Therefore, at the time of remittance, Daystar did not bear any of the financial burden for the tax liability. Yet Daystar is the entity seeking the refund, and there has been no assignment or transfer by Dean & Dean of its right to collect the refund. Pursuant to section 215.26 and Szabo, Dean & Dean is the entity that should have sought the refund, and because Dean & Dean has at no time assigned its right or nominated Daystar its representative to collect the paid sales tax, Daystar lacked standing to prosecute the instant refund action....

...occupation of office space on the property. [4] Prior to the execution of the modification, Edward, on behalf of the Deans and Dean & Dean, sent a letter to the mortgage lender in which he asserted that Daystar was going to guarantee the loans. [5] Section 215.26 provides in pertinent part: The Comptroller of the state may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, or assigns, any moneys paid into the State Treasury which constitute: (a) An overpayment of...

...and accordingly, would not have standing to demand a refund." 286 So.2d at 532. [7] Dean & Dean is also barred from seeking the refund because it was required to file an application for refund within three years of the accrual of its right to do so. § 215.26(2), Fla....

...v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 825 So.2d 351, 357 (Fla. 2002) (holding that the exception to the requirement that administrative remedies in a tax case be exhausted is available only when a taxpayer is seeking a refund pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes, and the sole basis claimed for the refund is that the statute imposing the tax or fee is facially unconstitutional)....

...ate, when sold at retail, computed on each taxable sale for the purpose of remitting the tax due.... .... (c) At the rate of 10.8 percent on the retail sales price of any direct-to-home satellite service received in this state. (Emphasis added). [2] Section 215.26 is the general provision for repayment of funds paid into the State Treasury....

...aningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation. 110 S.Ct. at 2247 (footnote omitted). In this case, Florida required taxpayers to raise their objections to the tax at issue in a postdeprivation refund action pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...ed, asserting that the PMATF assessment was unconstitutional. Appellants opposed certification essentially on the ground that the plaintiffs were not sufficiently similarly situated to the proposed class and that they had failed to first comply with section 215.26, Florida Statutes, by paying the assessment and then applying for a refund thereof....

...PMATF assessment. On appeal, the appellants argue that those plaintiffs/appellees who have not sought and been denied a refund of the PMATF assessment have no standing to serve as class representatives because compliance with the refund procedure in section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1993), is necessary before a civil action for refund may be filed....

...In Kuhnlein certain Florida residents challenged the constitutionality of an impact fee imposed on cars purchased outof-state but later registered in Florida. In Kuhnlein, as here, the state contended that the class action was barred because none of the class representatives had applied for a refund pursuant to sections 215.26 and 26.012(2)(e)....

...On October 17, 1990, Pogge's personal attorney, Larry Levy, filed a protest of the refund denial. In this letter, attorney Levy stated that Pogge had mistakenly paid the jeopardy assessment because he did not know he had no individual liability. Levy relied upon section 215.26, Florida Statutes, which allows the refund of any monies paid into the state treasury "in error." On March 12, 1991, the Department issued a letter of decision finding that Pogge was liable for the penalty under section 213.29. The Department took the position that no refund was available under section 215.26(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1987), because the assessment had been paid by a check drawn on Attorney Datillio's trust account, and not by Pogge individually....

...Pogge never filed a challenge or objection to that assessment within 60 days of August 26, 1987, as required by section 72.011(2). Accordingly, the Department argues that Pogge is barred and may now never challenge the assessment. Pogge argues that circuit courts have jurisdiction of denials of refunds of taxes under section 215.26, Florida Statutes, in three situations: (1) an overpayment; (2) a payment where no tax is due; and (3) any payment in error. See § 215.26(1), Fla....

...Grant's sales consisted of cash sales and sales made pursuant to several different types of credit plans. Grant paid Florida sales taxes on both cash and credit sales at the time the sales were made. Grant on March 29, 1977, requested the refund of $520,060.00 in sales taxes pursuant to the provisions of F.S. 215.26....

...On May 3, 1977, petitioner, through its trustee in bankruptcy, filed a request for a rehearing and re-examination of the denial of its claim for a refund of overpayment of Florida sales tax in the amount of $520,060.00. Petitioner made its claim pursuant to Section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...refund in the amount requested. By letter dated June 3, 1977, the Department of Revenue, on behalf of the Comptroller of the State of Florida, denied petitioner's request for a rehearing and re-examination. Those agencies had concluded that neither Section 215.26 nor Section 212.17(3) authorized a refund of sales tax paid on the unpaid balance of the accounts which had been found to be worthless and had been written off as bad debts....

...er that its request for rehearing and re-examination had been denied. On July 28, 1977, petitioner filed its petition for review in this Court for review of the respondent Agencies' final agency action denying petitioner's request for a refund under Section 215.26 or 212.17(3), Florida Statutes (1975), or both of these statutes....

...We now direct our attention to the merits of the case. Our decision turns upon the proper interpretation of certain sections of Chapter 215 F.S. and Chapter 212 F.S. Petitioner predicates its claim for a refund of the taxes in question upon the provisions of Section 212.17 and Section 215.26....

...a credit or set-off against future tax liability and do not authorize a refund of sales taxes collected on personal property sold on credit under the facts of this case. Petitioner bases its claim for the requested refund also upon the provisions of Section 215.26 F.S....

...The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) seeks review of the circuit court's non-final order granting class certification in a case seeking refund for moneys paid into the state treasury in which none of the named plaintiffs, appellees herein, complied with the provisions of the refund statute, section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...ect since May 28, 1999, the effective date of current section 325.214(2), Florida Statutes (1999). The Department further asserted the circuit court has jurisdiction of a refund case only after each person seeking a refund applies for a refund under section 215.26, Florida Statutes, and is denied same....

...ionality *978 of Section 325.214(2), Florida Statutes (1988), no class action "direct-file" exception is available to the Plaintiffs under Nemeth, supra . Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Legislature's conditions precedent in Section 215.26, Florida Statutes. As an affirmative defense, the Department alleged appellees failed to state a cause of action, because they never filed claims for refunds as required by section 215.26, Florida Statutes, as pronounced by the supreme court in Department of Revenue v....

...The supreme court held "that a taxpayer's claim based solely upon the tax being unconstitutional may be filed in the appropriate court rather than with the Comptroller." See id. The court further explained that suit must be filed within the three-year time limit prescribed by section 215.26(2), Florida Statute....

...because it violated the commerce clause. Then in Nemeth, the court clarified the Kuhnlein decision, explaining: [W]e expressly hold that a Florida taxpayer may file directly in the appropriate court without filing an administrative claim pursuant to section 215.26 if the sole basis claimed for the refund is that the tax is unconstitutional....

...se the tax is unconstitutional, to file the claim with the Comptroller would be a futile act. The claim based solely upon the constitutionality of the tax must be commenced by filing in the appropriate court within the time requirements set forth in section 215.26(2), that is, "within 3 years after the right to refund has accrued." ......

...Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, an additional fee of $1 shall be assessed upon the issuance of each dealer certificate, which fee shall be forwarded to the department for deposit into the Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund. See Ch. 98-248, § 51, Laws of Fla. The refund statute, section 215.26, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: 215.26 Repayment of funds paid into State Treasury through error.— (1) The Comptroller of the state may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, or assigns, any moneys paid into the State Treasury which cons...

...fee; rather, appellees challenge only the Department's implementation of the statute authorizing the fee. Thus, appellees have raised an "as applied" challenge to section 325.214(2). Pursuant to Nemeth, appellees were required to seek a refund under section 215.26, before filing suit in circuit court....

...The defendants opposed the motion, citing Department of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So.2d 970 (Fla. 1999), and asserting that the trial court "prior to reaching the Class Representation Allegations, ... must dismiss the plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction, in light of Section 215.26, Florida Statutes [ostensibly requiring persons seeking tax refunds to apply to the Comptroller before filing in court]." The defendants raised no other grounds in opposition....

...On the present appeal of the non-final order determining that the action is maintainable on behalf of a class, I would affirm. NOTES [1] Under the "direct file" exception, "a Florida taxpayer may file directly in the appropriate court without filing an administrative claim pursuant to section 215.26 if the sole basis claimed for the refund is that the tax is unconstitutional." See Department of Revenue v....

...The court considered conditions precedent to suit, however, only in deciding whether the order denying class certification had support in the record. The named plaintiffs in GTE Florida had applied to the Department of Revenue for refunds in accordance with section 215.26, Florida Statutes....

...The trial court ruled, inter alia, 1) that plaintiffs did not have to first exhaust administrative remedies before *144 challenging the tax as a violation of the ADA; 2) that the action was not time-barred by the three-year claim period specified in section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes; and 3) that sovereign immunity had been waived under Title II of the ADA....

Polk County filed a refund application under section 215.26, Florida Statutes, the tax refund statute,

...complaint in which Bugliaro seeks damages, including a tax refund. Because Count I includes a request for a refund, Bugliaro and any putative class members were required to exhaust their administrative remedies with the Department of Revenue pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes (2016)....

...1 This suit was instituted by Hygrade against the Board and the Comptroller, Ray E. Green. Upon motion the suit was dismissed as to the Comptroller and proceeded to final judgment only against the Board. The principal point on this appeal involves the construction placed by the trial judge on F.S. Section 215.26, F.S....

...In disposing of the Board’s contention the trial judge recited in the judgment appealed that the statute is susceptible to the construction placed upon it by the Board, but held that the case is controlled by a decision of the Supreme Court which held that F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A., is not of general application but one in relation to claims against the Comptroller....

...xes paid by it under protest on bonds issued outside the State of Florida. Application for refund of the taxes was made by the Electric Company to the Comptroller and denied, such application having been filed pursuant to the re•quirements of F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A., which is the statuté now under consideration....

...The court held the tax to have been illegally exact and ordered the Comptroller -to refund that part of the tax for which application had been timely filed. In so holding the Supreme Court made the following statement on which the trial judge relied in the case we now review: “Section 215.26, supra, is not of a general application but one in relation to claims against the Comptroller.” Just what the author of the opinion meant by the quoted statement is not entirely clear....

...If the claimant’s right to a refund from the Comptroller is barred by the non-claim provisions of the statute, then he has no right to assert a claim for judgment in the amount of such refund from the state agency who collected the payment in question. It is our construction of F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A., that it is intended to provide an administrative procedure by which a person may secure a refund of monies paid by him into the treasury of this state, if such payment was made under any of the conditions specified in the statute....

...axes, licenses, fees, and charges levied and collected for the operation of regulatory boards, commissions or other similar agencies or for a specific purpose of such agency. 5 The authority *538 for making refunds is vested in the Comptroller under Section 215.26, which provides that if money paid into the treasury under any of the specified conditions entitling one to a refund has been credited to an appropriation, such appropriation shall at the time of making the refund be charged therewith....

...tled to seek relief in the court of this state for return of the inspection fees illegally exacted of it by the Board under the circumstances shown by this record, it was first required to exhaust the administrative remedies afforded it by F.S. Sec. 215.26, F.S.A., by filing the appropriate application for refund with the Comptroller within eighteen months after the rights to refund had accrued....

...rect, proceedings to determine the validity of the tax. It failed to file any claim or take any action within one year of the time of the payment which is the time of the accrual of the right in this-case and the claim involved is now barred by F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A.” Since Hygrade failed to exhaust its administrative remedy by filing an application for refund of the inspection fees paid by it pursuant to the provisions of and within the time required by the statute, its right to the relief prayed for in its complaint is barred. By its brief Hygrade attempts to demonstrate that F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A....

...mages awarded Hygrade by the judgment appealed was erroneous. We therefore hold that because of Hy-grade’s failure to file its application for refund with the Comptroller within eighteen months after its right to refund accrued as-required by F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A., its right to a refund or for a money judgment against the Board is barred....

...The judgment appealed is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded with directions that judgment be entered in favor of the Board. Reversed. CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and STURGIS, J., concur. . Florida Livestock Board v. Walter Strauss & Son (Fla.App.1960) 118 So.2d 670 . . “215.26 Repayment of funds paid into state treasury through error, etc....

...Florida Constitution, Article V, § 20(c)(3), grants Florida circuit courts jurisdiction to hear challenges to any state tax. Florida Statutes § 72.011 (1988) and § 86.011 (1987) give Florida circuit courts the power to issue declaratory and injunctive relief' in tax cases. Florida Statutes § 215.26 (1989) gives Florida taxpayers the right to seek a tax refund from the state....

...tutes (Supp. 1990), and seek a refund of the taxes paid under the statute. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint with prejudice because they failed to allege that they had filed a claim for refund as required by section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994)....

...Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717 (Fla.1994) controls this case, and that State ex rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay, 74 So.2d 560 (Fla.1954) does not apply to their claims. We agree and reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings. The trial court stated in its order of dismissal: In my view Sex. 215.26(2) Fla. Stat. (sic) must be considered in light of State ex rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay, 74 So.2d *779 560 (Fla.1954). Of course that court dealt with a prior version of Section 215.26 and the facts involved the failure to file an application for a refund. In Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717 (Fla.1994), Florida's Supreme Court discounted the necessity to file a formal refund application. Nonetheless, Kuhnlein did not overrule Victor Chemical 's decision that 215.26(2) was a nonclaim statute....

...ferently from those who were afforded relief in Kuhnlein, I have a duty to follow the law as construed by appellate courts. Notwithstanding the equities, I conclude that Victor Chemical controls. In Victor Chemical, the supreme court explained: F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A., is not, strictly speaking, a statute of limitations but is more in the nature of a statute of nonclaim....

...t proceedings to determine the validity of the tax. It failed to file any claim or take any action within one year of the time of the payment [2] which is the time of the accrual of the right in this case and the claim involved is now barred by F.S. Section 215.26, F.S.A....

...anding to challenge the constitutionality of the statute and seek a refund for the taxes paid. It appears that the state argued in Kuhnlein, as it does here, that persons who sought a refund of fees lacked standing because they failed to comply with section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1993) by first filing a claim for refund with the Comptroller....

...The fact that these plaintiffs face penalties for failure to pay an allegedly unconstitutional tax is sufficient to create standing under Florida law. Id. at 720. Accordingly, we hold that this case must be reversed on the authority of Kuhnlein. However, we consider the applicability of section 215.26, Florida Statutes, to claims for refund of taxes paid to be a question of great public importance....

...1994) OVERRULED OR RECEDED FROM STATE EX REL. VICTOR CHEMICAL WORKS V. GAY, 74 So.2d 560 (Fla.1954) TO THE EXTENT THAT VICTOR CHEMICAL HOLDS THAT THE RIGHT TO A REFUND OF TAXES IS BARRED IF THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MAKE A TIMELY CLAIM FOR REFUND AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 215.26, FLORIDA STATUTES? Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED; QUESTION CERTIFIED. KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 215.26(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), provides "the exclusive procedure and remedy for refund claims between individual funds and accounts in the State Treasury." [2] Section 215.26 has been amended to provide a three-year time limitation for filing of claims for refund....

...it and pay the contested amount into the court registry rather than to the government. 689 So.2d at 363-64 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the district court decision, pointing out that a different statutory provision, section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1987), authorized a postpayment remedy wherein the taxpayer could pay the tax first and file suit later. The federal Court reasoned: The effect of the District Court of Appeal's decision below, however, was to cut off Newsweek's recourse to § 215.26....

...The federal Court concluded that Newsweek was entitled to proceed via the postpayment route and obtain an adjudication on the merits of its refund claim: "Newsweek is entitled to a clear and certain remedy and thus it can use the refund procedures [in section 215.26] to adjudicate the merits of its claim." Id....

...ent. The trial court ruled, inter alia, 1) that plaintiffs did not have to first exhaust administrative remedies before challenging the tax as a violation of the ADA; 2) that the action was not time-barred by the three-year claim period specified in section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes; and 3) that sovereign immunity had been waived under Title II of the ADA....

...adopted a statutory procedure for claiming a tax refund where no tax is due. Florida has established a statutory procedure for obtaining a refund of a tax payment where no tax was due. At the time the plaintiffs filed this suit, the statute stated: 215.26 Repayment of funds paid into State Treasury through error.— (1) The Comptroller of the state may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, or assigns, any moneys paid into the State Treasury which cons...

...(4) This section is the exclusive procedure and remedy for refund claims between individual funds and accounts in the State Treasury. . . . . (6) A taxpayer may contest a denial of refund of tax, interest, or penalty paid under a section or chapter specified in s. 72.011(1) pursuant to the provisions of s. 72.011. § 215.26, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996) (emphasis added). Under section 215.26, a taxpayer can obtain a refund of a fee paid where no fee was owed....

...[4] The taxpayer *654 may bring suit if the taxpayer's administrative request for a refund is denied. Eleventh Amendment (or sovereign) immunity bars a suit against a State for monetary relief, where the State has not consented to be sued. See Lane, 541 U.S. at 517, 124 S.Ct. 1978. For tax refunds under section 215.26 the State has consented to be sued, and the immunity has been waived. See McKesson Corp. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18, 49 n. 34, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990) ("the State waived any sovereign immunity from suit through Fla. Stat. § 215.26's authorization of a state-court refund action ....

...der Lane. [5] V. We next turn to the merits of the judgment ordering reimbursement of parking permit fees paid since January 26, 1992. Under Florida precedent, it was necessary for each individual class member to make an application for refund under section 215.26 within the statutory time limit. The Florida Supreme Court has held that compliance with section 215.26 will be excused "when the claim is solely that the refund is required because the tax is unconstitutional. . . ." Dept. of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So.2d 970, 974 (Fla.1999) (footnote omitted). The court went on to say, "If the refund is claimed on any other basis, there must be compliance with section 215.26....

...2d DCA 1999). A demand by the class representatives for a refund on behalf of the entire class is not sufficient. Id. at 963-64. The summary judgment record now before us does not reveal which class members, if any, made application for a refund under section 215.26 within the statutory time limit. We therefore reverse the portion of the judgment which requires refunds and remand for consideration of monetary relief for only those claimants who timely applied for a refund under section 215.26, and for other proceedings consistent herewith....

...The First District reversed the trial court's order as it related to the pleading references to a class action, but limited its holding by stating: However, Florida law requires a taxpayer to apply for a refund of illegally imposed taxes within a certain time period and unless this is done, no refund is available. F.S. § 215.26....

...Devlin, 305 So.2d at 849. Following the Devlin case, the trial court in this case concluded that all potential members of the class must first comply with the administrative procedures for acquiring a tax refund before they can be certified as a class. See § 215.26, Fla....

...ty of an impact fee imposed on cars purchased out of state and later registered in Florida. The state contended that the class action was barred because none of the class representatives had applied for a refund pursuant to sections 26.012(2)(e) and 215.26, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...s based solely upon the tax being unconstitutional. See Dep't of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So.2d 970 (Fla.1999). The court noted that if the refund is claimed on any basis other than the unconstitutionality of the tax there must be full compliance with section 215.26....

...ly commenced proceedings to review the Department's denial of its refund application. It observes that a taxpayer is authorized by statute to seek a tax refund when it has overpaid a tax, paid a tax when no tax is due, or paid a tax in error. See § 215.26, Fla. Stat....

...strict opinion in this case. The only one relating to refund of taxes was State ex rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay, 1954 Fla., 74 So.2d 560, 46 A.L.R.2d 1340 . There, this Court was concerned with a limitation or *297 non-claim of one year in F.S. § 215.26, F....

...All of the above statutes provide that the claim must be filed with the state comptroller. As to the necessity to comply with these statutes, there is also conflict. In Florida Livestock Board v. Hygrade Food Products Corporation, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 535 , in referring to F.S. § 215.26, F.S.A., it was held.- “Since Hygrade failed to exhaust its administrative remedy by filing an application for refund of the inspection fees paid by it pursuant to the provisions of and within the time required by the statute, its right to the relief prayed for in its complaint is barred.” In Overstreet v....

...im shall become due, and shall be barred if not so presented. . This is not the one year required in F.S. § 95.08, F.S.A. In fact, F.S. § 95.08, F.S.A., has never been mentioned in any other refund case. The one-year limitation referred to in F.S. § 215.26, F.S.A., has, by the Legislature, later been extended to 18 months and is now three years. . F.S. § 193.40, F.S.A. — Covers refund of taxes assessed on the county tax roll. F.S. § 199.341, F.S.A. — Covers refund of intangible taxes. F.S. § 200.36, F.S.A. — Covers refund of tangible personal property taxes. F.S. § 215.26, F.S.A....

...Friedlander, Miami, for appellants. S. Craig Kiser, Gen. Counsel; Walter Wood, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellee. ERVIN, Chief Judge. This is an administrative appeal from appellee's final order denying appellants' class action petition, filed pursuant to Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, for refund of filing fees paid into the State Treasury. We affirm. In December 1982, appellants, a group of ten Florida chartered limited partnerships, filed a section 215.26 application with appellee for a refund of all filing fees other than the annual filing fee, paid to the Department of State since December 9, 1979, for filing and indexing certificates and other documents pursuant to Chapter 620, Florida Statutes....

...[appellants] and thereby attempt to adjudicate the rights or benefits due members of such class not actually parties to these proceedings." [2] We agree with the order of denial. There is no express authority for a class action administrative hearing in either section *1307 215.26, Chapter 120, or the Florida Administrative Code....

...ongoing proceedings, Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-5.207, and for the consolidation of proceedings which involve similar issues of law or fact. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 28-5.106. Nevertheless, appellants argue that the use of the term "person" in section 215.26(1), by reading it in pari materia with the term's definition in Section 1.01(3), Florida Statutes, necessarily includes groups or classes of petitioners....

...Appellants also argue that State ex rel. Devlin v. Dickinson, 305 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), supports their position. In Devlin, this court allowed a class action in circuit court on behalf of taxpayers as long as all class members had applied for a section 215.26 refund of the allegedly illegal tax....

...which orders it to refund all taxes paid by the appellees pursuant to section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1987) because the statute was declared unconstitutional. We reverse this judgment because the appellees' lawsuit was untimely filed pursuant to section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...The class members were notified that their assets would be frozen or seized if the tax and penalties were not immediately paid. Most class members did not challenge the assessments or seek refunds within the short time periods prescribed by sections 72.011, providing an administrative remedy, or section 215.26, for applications for refund....

...In 1996, the class plaintiffs sought refunds for the taxes and penalties paid between 1986 and 1994. The Department moved to dismiss the action because the plaintiffs had not previously filed administrative refund requests within 60 days and/or 3 years of payment, as required by sections 72.011 and 215.26, respectively....

...uant to a statute later declared unconstitutional. See McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18, 22, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990). They argued that state law, including the procedures in sections 72.011 and 215.26, did not provide "meaningful" relief because use of the procedures would have been futile....

...Within months of the supreme court's March 1994 decision, class representatives Leon and Munson submitted refund requests to the Department. The Department denied their requests on the grounds that Leon's and Munson's administrative requests were untimely filed under section 215.26(2), which requires taxpayers to file for refunds within three years of when the right to a refund "accrued." Each of the persons in the certified class, including the individual appellees, was sent a written assessment for the amount of the tax....

...because the tax in unconstitutional, to file the claim with the Comptroller would be a futile act." Id. at 974. Consequently, it held that a taxpayer may file suit directly in the appropriate court without filing an administrative claim pursuant to section 215.26 if the *201 sole basis asserted for the refund is the unconstitutionality of the tax. Id. Section 215.26(2), however, provides that such a lawsuit must be commenced "within 3 years after the right to refund has accrued." The class members argue in this appeal that their right accrued when section 212.0505 was declared unconstitutional....

...when it held that "a plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of a tax statute and seeking a refund, while not required to file with the Comptroller [of the Department of Revenue], must still file suit within three years of payment as required by section 215.26(2)." Id. at 974. Nevertheless, the taxpayers argue that under McKesson, the State has not provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy. But the Florida Supreme Court rejected this argument in Nemeth, stating that "section 215.26 provides adequate post-deprivation relief so as to comport with federal due process standards." Id....

...advanced the same arguments they are now urging upon us for affirmance, namely that McKesson mandates a refund of all payments made under the unconstitutional tax. The Florida Supreme Court evidently rejected this argument when it decided to enforce section 215.26 by requiring that suit be filed within three years of payment....

...on its propriety. NOTES [1] The Department has acknowledged that 51 members of the class paid the tax within the preceding 3 year period (i.e., after January 16, 1993). Unfortunately for appellees, the named plaintiffs are not within this group. [2] Section 215.26 is even cited as an example of a proper procedural time limitation....

...The same legal questions are involved and the character of relief, a refund of taxes paid, is applicable to all. However, Florida law requires a taxpayer to apply for a refund of illegally imposed taxes within a certain time period and unless this is done, no refund is available. F.S. § 215.26....

...In fact, at the conclusion of the instructions, there was a stamp bearing the Miami address of the Department of Revenue. The Department thereafter advised appellants that their claims for refund were denied. It is our opinion, and we so hold, that although F.S. § 215.26 requires applications for refund to be filed with the Comptroller, the appellees, having supplied the refund forms with instructions to appellant, are estopped from now suggesting that the procedures followed in good faith by appellants did not comport with the law....

...Thus, Amerisure’s actual 2008 tax overpayment was refunded in 2010 in the form of cash equivalent credits redeemable against its pending assessment obligations for 2010. This refund transaction falls squarely within the ambit of Section 215.26, Florida Statutes. (Internal citations omitted.) That the quarterly forms indicated increasing “credits” during 2009 based on the quarterly reports of negative net premium is not disputed by the Department....

...to reduce a future year’s tax liability.” 11 Statements in the proposed draft rules and draft policy and procedures manual 12 do not require compliance by anybody outside the agency, do not create 11 The Department’s position is also consistent with the plain language of section 215.26, Florida Statutes (2008), regulating refunds. Section 215.26 provides, in part: (1) The Chief Financial Officer may refund ....

...This draft of the proposed rules also provided that when an assessment for either the WCATF or SDTF was overpaid, the carrier could elect either to apply the overpayment against future assessments owed to the same fund or submit a refund request under section 215.26, Florida Statutes, within three years of the date the alleged overpaid amount was initially deposited into the State Treasury; after the end of the three-year window, any unused portion of an overpayment would no...

...handle actions for refunds, was already a party to the action, and DCFS demonstrated no special expertise in the subject matter of the pending litigation. We, therefore, affirm. In December 1996, appellees instituted two separate actions pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1995), against the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter the division) for refunds of statutory fees paid, pursuant to section 561.19(5), Florida Statutes, for new alcoholic beverage licenses in Leon County....

...f Department of Educ. v. Glasser, 622 So.2d 944 (Fla.1993), mandates reversal. We reject these arguments. First, the Legislature has determined that DBPR is the executive agency authorized to defend in tax refund litigation such as the instant case. § 215.26, Fla....

...at 1021 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Florida has established a statutory procedure for obtaining a refund of a tax payment where no tax was due.” State Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Rendon, 957 So. 2d 647, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Section 215.26 of the Florida Statutes “provides the mechanism” for obtaining a tax refund....

...defined administrative process “before proceeding to [Florida] circuit court.” Id. “The taxpayer may bring suit if the taxpayer’s administrative request for a refund is 1 Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). 2 Section 215.26 provides, “The [c]hief [f]inancial [o]fficer may refund to the person who paid same . . . any moneys paid into the State Treasury which constitute: (a) [a]n overpayment of any tax . . . (b) [a] payment where no tax, license, or account is due; and (c) [a]ny payment made into the State Treasury in error . . . .” Fla. Stat. § 215.26(1). A taxpayer must file an application for a refund with Florida’s chief financial officer or her delegate on a form approved by her. Id. § 215.26(2). Section 215.26 offers “the exclusive procedure and remedy for refund claims between individual funds and accounts in the State Treasury.” Id. § 215.26(4). 17  Case: 19-10361 Date Filed: 09/29/2020 Page: 18 of 22 denied.” Rendon, 957 So....

...The complaint sought both injunctive relief and “damages, including a tax refund.” Id. at 1121. Given the request for a tax refund, the court concluded that the plaintiff and class members “were required to exhaust their administrative remedies with the Department of Revenue pursuant to section 215.26.” Id....

...remedies to exhaust. The BJ’s plaintiff sued under the same Act. 273 So. 3d at 1120. But regardless of the nature of the claim, because the plaintiff’s remedy was for a “tax refund,” she needed to exhaust the administrative procedures in section 215.26 before going to the courts....

...Fox’s opening brief refers to his requested relief as a refund of the tax and cites Florida’s regulatory provisions governing refunds of sales tax. And the brief reiterates Fox’s request for the repayment of the allegedly overcharged tax. Like the plaintiff in BJ’s, Fox must comply with section 215.26 before suing for a tax refund. Given that Fox failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, we also have to decide whether the district court properly dismissed his claim for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction....

...covered by the Act.” Id. at 526. We concluded that because Florida law created a jurisdictional bar for filing in state court, the district court similarly had no jurisdiction to hear the diversity action. Id. at 528. Here, the district court properly applied section 215.26’s administrative exhaustion requirement to this federal suit....

...ff’s claim in state court. 849 F.2d at 528. Like the workers’ compensation act in Connolly, Florida courts have read 21  Case: 19-10361 Date Filed: 09/29/2020 Page: 22 of 22 section 215.26 to create a jurisdictional bar for filing a tax refund claim if the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedy....

...in § 697.04, the tax shall be paid at the time of execution on the initial debt or obligation secured, excluding future advances; at the time and so often as any *1005 future advance is made, the tax shall be paid on all sums then advanced. . . ” Section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes (1971), provides: “Application for refunds as provided by this section shall be filed with the comptroller within three years after the right to such refund shall have accrued else such right shall be barred and...

finding is supported by the record on appeal. . § 215.26, Fla.Stat. (1981).

...The trial court dismissed the action solely on the first ground, and Westring appeals. We affirm. Under the authority of State ex rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay, 74 So.2d 560 (Fla.1954), Westring is required to file a claim for a refund pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1993), before he may invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court....

...The court recognized that the nature of non-claim statutes is to preclude a right of action unless and until the claim is filed and, of course, filed within the time permitted by statute. As the Department of Revenue correctly notes, Westring is still within the three-year statutory non-claim period provided by section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1993)....

212.17(3) is the exclusive remedy and that Section 215.26 is not applicable. In support of this view

...ly commenced proceedings to review the Department's denial of its refund application. It observes that a taxpayer is authorized by statute to seek a tax refund when it has overpaid a tax, paid a tax when no tax is due, or paid a tax in error. See § 215.26, Fla. Stat....

of Section 199.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Under Section 215.26, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provision is made for refund

...y stamp taxes provided for by Sections 201.01 and 201.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Relator thereupon paid the tax, under protest, and made application to the Respondent, Ray E. Green, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, for a refund, pursuant to Section 215.26 Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...Specifically, Easter paid his fine under protest after raising a legal challenge to the validity of the Ordinance. As a result, the trial court could 10 seeking a refund for the same the taxpayer need not comply with the ‘administrative’ requirements in section 215.26.” (Emphasis added).3 Significantly, the Kuhnlein opinion did not reference Keton or the voluntary payment defense....

...Discount Sleep of Ocala, LLC v. City of Ocala, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D123, D124 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 5, 2018). 3 The United States Supreme Court has noted that Florida has a “longstanding practice of permitting taxpayers to seek refunds under § 215.26 for taxes paid under an unconstitutional statute.” Newsweek, Inc....

...Tax refund - facial challenge The Appellee, the Department of Revenue (“the Department”), argues that the satellite companies cannot seek a tax refund because they failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. To receive a tax refund, a taxpayer must file a refund application with the Department. § 215.26(2), Fla....

...satellite companies filed a refund application. As such, the Department is correct that the parties failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. However, there is an exception to the process required by Chapter 215. If a taxpayer is seeking a refund pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes, and the 5 sole basis for the refund is that the statute imposing the tax is facially unconstitutional, the circuit court will have jurisdiction despite the taxpayer’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies....

...Whether or not the Plaintiffs paid the sales tax with full knowledge of the situation is a question of fact that the Court cannot reconcile on a motion to dismiss. C. Administrative Remedies Papa John’s contends that Plaintiffs are seeking a refund of taxes paid to the State and must first pursue a refund claim under § 215.26, Florida Statutes....

...s was not subject to the imposition of the Florida Documentary Stamp Tax. The tax having been paid under circumstances where no tax was due and the appellant • having proceeded to . recover it in timely fashion in accordance with the provisions of Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., we find on the basis of this record that appellant was entitled to a refund of the amount of the tax paid....

unconstitutional statute. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 215.26, F. S., which governs refunds of payments into

three-year statute of limitations provided in § 215.26, Florida Statutes. Verizon took the issue

by the three-year claim period specified in section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes; and 3) that sovereign

...This appeal concerns whether or not the appellant, plaintiff below, as a taxpayer, is entitled to a refund of taxes illegally or wrongfully exacted from the taxpayer where no formal application for refund was filed within the three years as required by Florida Statutes § 215.26....

...lly exacted “and this gave rise to a valid claim for refund.” The trial court then, however, held that the plaintiff (appellant) was barred from recovery of the amount of the taxes because of a failure to comply with the requirements of Sections 215.26 and 199.341, Florida Statutes, with respect to- the time and manner within which claims for refund of taxes illegally paid must be made....

...Florida courts are also given power to issue declaratory and injunctive relief in tax cases. See FLA. STAT.ANN. § 72.011 (West Supp.1988) and § 86.011 (West 1987). A Florida taxpayer also has the statutory right to seek a tax refund from the state. FLA.STAT.ANN. § 215.26 (West 1971)....

...2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 99 S.Ct. 1139 , 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity by passage of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). Moreover, the state of Florida has not consented to plaintiff’s action. Section 215.26(4) of the Florida Statutes provides that a refund action under that section is the “exclusive procedure and remedy for refund claims between individual funds and accounts in the State Treasury”....

...Appellant acknowledged that it was statutorily barred from getting a refund for the first tax payment made through Sunshine. Appellant argued, however, that the second payment made directly to the Department was an overpayment made in error for purposes of § 215.26....

...of the same tax, made directly to the Department this time, remains eligible to be refunded because it wasn’t made through a channel for which refunds are prohibited. Section 206.13 allows taxpayers to seek a refund for erroneously paid motor fuel taxes under § 215.26, which provides for refunds for overpaid taxes, payments made where no tax is due, or other payment errors. § 215.26(1), Fla....

...corresponding to the very same tax invoice. The Department received both payments, taking in double what it was owed. Appellant’s first tax payment through its supplier satisfied the required tax. Thus, as Appellant asserts, the later payment is eligible to be refunded under § 215.26(1) as an overpayment or other error in paying an already-paid tax....

...But, as we will see, the two are, at times, in tension. Florida law identifies who may be refunded. It provides “[t]he Chief Financial Officer may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives or assigns, any moneys paid into the State Treasury.” § 215.26(1), Fla. Stat. That person must file an application for refund with the Chief Financial Officer. § 215.26(2), Fla....

...12A–1.014(5). But when an application for refund is denied, the statute permits only the “taxpayer” to “contest a denial of refund of tax . . . paid under a section or chapter specified in section 72.011(1) pursuant to the provisions of section 72.011.” § 215.26(6), Fla. Stat....

...‘petitioner.’” (emphasis supplied). And so we see that, unlike the Code which says a dealer is the proper party to seek a refund from the Department, Florida law only allows the taxpayer to receive a refund or to contest a refund denial. See § 215.26(1) and (6), Fla. Stat. Meanwhile, the Code states a “taxpayer” who paid excess taxes “must secure a refund 2 Section 215.26 is a jurisdiction statute of non-claims. Victor Chem....

...Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 2 at 56 (2012). To reiterate, Florida law provides that the Chief Financial Officer may only issue a tax refund to “the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, or assigns.” § 215.26(1), Fla....

...Carolina v. Dickinson, 286 So. 2d 529, 532 (Fla. 1973), determined that the dealer lacked standing to seek a refund for taxes “paid by the purchaser or consumer.” While both Daystar and Szabo are procedurally distinguishable, the decisions show that section 215.26 means what it says—that the person who paid the tax is the proper person or entity to be refunded. Further, after an application has been denied, Florida law unequivocally states the “taxpayer” is the person or entity who may contest the refund denial....

...But we need not overcomplicate it. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a taxpayer as “someone who pays or is subject to a tax.” Taxpayer, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). And there is nothing in the statutes that suggest any other meaning. Reading section 215.26(1) and section 72.011(1)(a) together, therefore, requires that the refund be paid to the person who paid the tax (i.e., the person who bore the tax burden), and that taxpayer is the person entitled to contest a refund denial. App...

...But, as we will see, the two are, at times, in tension. Florida law identifies who may be refunded. It provides “[t]he Chief Financial Officer may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives or assigns, any moneys paid into the State Treasury.” § 215.26(1), Fla. Stat. That person must file an application for refund with the Chief Financial Officer. § 215.26(2), Fla....

...12A–1.014(5). But when an application for refund is denied, the statute permits only the “taxpayer” to “contest a denial of refund of tax . . . paid under a section or chapter specified in section 72.011(1) pursuant to the provisions of section 72.011.” § 215.26(6), Fla. Stat....

...‘petitioner.’” (emphasis supplied). And so we see that, unlike the Code which says a dealer is the proper party to seek a refund from the Department, Florida law only allows the taxpayer to receive a refund or to contest a refund denial. See § 215.26(1) and (6), Fla. Stat. Meanwhile, the Code states a “taxpayer” who paid excess taxes “must secure a refund 2 Section 215.26 is a jurisdiction statute of non-claims. Victor Chem....

...Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 2 at 56 (2012). To reiterate, Florida law provides that the Chief Financial Officer may only issue a tax refund to “the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, or assigns.” § 215.26(1), Fla....

...Carolina v. Dickinson, 286 So. 2d 529, 532 (Fla. 1973), determined that the dealer lacked standing to seek a refund for taxes “paid by the purchaser or consumer.” While both Daystar and Szabo are procedurally distinguishable, the decisions show that section 215.26 means what it says—that the person who paid the tax is the proper person or entity to be refunded. Further, after an application has been denied, Florida law unequivocally states the “taxpayer” is the person or entity who may contest the refund denial....

...But we need not overcomplicate it. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a taxpayer as “someone who pays or is subject to a tax.” Taxpayer, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). And there is nothing in the statutes that suggest any other meaning. Reading section 215.26(1) and section 72.011(1)(a) together, therefore, requires that the refund be paid to the person who paid the tax (i.e., the person who bore the tax burden), and that taxpayer is the person entitled to contest a refund denial. App...

...But, as we will see, the two are, at times, in tension. Florida law identifies who may be refunded. It provides “[t]he Chief Financial Officer may refund to the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives or assigns, any moneys paid into the State Treasury.” § 215.26(1), Fla. Stat. That person must file an application for refund with the Chief Financial Officer. § 215.26(2), Fla....

...12A–1.014(5). But when an application for refund is denied, the statute permits only the “taxpayer” to “contest a denial of refund of tax . . . paid under a section or chapter specified in section 72.011(1) pursuant to the provisions of section 72.011.” § 215.26(6), Fla. Stat....

...‘petitioner.’” (emphasis supplied). And so we see that, unlike the Code which says a dealer is the proper party to seek a refund from the Department, Florida law only allows the taxpayer to receive a refund or to contest a refund denial. See § 215.26(1) and (6), Fla. Stat. Meanwhile, the Code states a “taxpayer” who paid excess taxes “must secure a refund 2 Section 215.26 is a jurisdiction statute of non-claims. Victor Chem....

...Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 2 at 56 (2012). To reiterate, Florida law provides that the Chief Financial Officer may only issue a tax refund to “the person who paid same, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, or assigns.” § 215.26(1), Fla....

...Carolina v. Dickinson, 286 So. 2d 529, 532 (Fla. 1973), determined that the dealer lacked standing to seek a refund for taxes “paid by the purchaser or consumer.” While both Daystar and Szabo are procedurally distinguishable, the decisions show that section 215.26 means what it says—that the person who paid the tax is the proper person or entity to be refunded. Further, after an application has been denied, Florida law unequivocally states the “taxpayer” is the person or entity who may contest the refund denial....

...But we need not overcomplicate it. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a taxpayer as “someone who pays or is subject to a tax.” Taxpayer, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). And there is nothing in the statutes that suggest any other meaning. Reading section 215.26(1) and section 72.011(1)(a) together, therefore, requires that the refund be paid to the person who paid the tax (i.e., the person who bore the tax burden), and that taxpayer is the person entitled to contest a refund denial. App...

...refunds for the period March 1, 1974 through December 31, 1976 are barred under Florida Statute § 211.-06(2). The issue on appeal is whether Florida Statute § 211.06(2) 1 applies and bars the claim (as contended by DOR) or whether Florida Statute § 215.26 2 applies and the claims are timely filed (as contended by appellant). *130 We hold that § 215.26 controls and allows three years after accrual of the right to a refund within which the taxpayer can file application with the Comptroller for the refund....

...l contemplated. No language in § 211.06 puts the taxpayer on notice that, as claimed by DOR, severance tax refunds can only be claimed within the one year following payment, and we reject that strained construction in favor of the clear language of § 215.26 allowing a three-year period for tax refunds....

...and this provision shall in no way prejudice any right of action that may accrue to any person liable for the payment of the tax to contest in any court of competent jurisdiction the payment of any or all of the taxes imposed herein.” . Fla.Stat. § 215.26: “(1) The comptroller of the state may refund to the person who paid same, or his heirs, personal representatives or assigns, any moneys paid into the state treasury which constitute: (a) An overpayment of any tax, license or account due;...

there was no statutory authority for that award. § 215.26, Fla.Stat. (1989); Flack v. Graham, .461 So.2d

other states. On 25 October 1979, pursuant to Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, (1979) U.P.S. filed two

Department of Revenue pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes (2016). Id. On September

applicable to the tax authorized in s. 336.021. Section 215.26, which is the exclusive procedure and remedy

..., of 35 percent of the road taxes it paid for the 1980 tax year. The Department essentially adopted this recommendation. Greyhound takes the position that it is entitled to a refund of seven-twelfths of 100 percent of the 1980 road taxes pursuant to § 215.26(1), Fla.Stat., which provides: The Comptroller of the state may refund to the person who paid same, or his heirs, personal representatives or assigns, any moneys paid into the State Treasury which constitute: (a) An overpayment of any tax,...

...egarding motor carrier requests for refunds of fees and taxes for the calendar year 1980.” There was no statutory authority for the imposition of the road tax for the last seven months of the 1980 fiscal year. The language of the refund provision, § 215.26, does not indicate that entitlement *164 to a refund is dependent on the nature of the appropriation to which the payment was credited. Indeed, § 215.26(1) specifically indicates that if an appropriation has been credited with the sum which is to be refunded under that subsection, the appropriation is to be charged with the amount of the refund....

...4th DCA 5 2019) (“We have stated that failure to exhaust administrative remedies goes to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear a matter.”); BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Bugliaro, 273 So. 3d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Since [section 215.26, Florida Statutes (2016)] requires that an aggrieved party pursue his or her administrative remedies prior to filing a lawsuit, the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction in this case.”)....

...V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We recently quashed the Fourth District’s decision in Nemeth because the respondents in that case failed to file suit challenging the constitutionality of the vehicle impact fee statute 1 within the three-year time limit mandated by section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994)....

...ensure the counties only paid their “actual costs.” Any arguments as to where the money to repay the appellants must come from is beyond the scope of this opinion.7 7 How those monies are returned to the appellants, whether it be through a proceeding under section 215.26, Florida Statutes, or another means, does not preclude the appellants’ requested “remedy” in this appeal under section 120.68. Our decision determines that the appellants were impacted by adverse agency action. It does not determine the manner in which the repayments should be made to the appellants....

...� “to recover damages in tort”; it does not waive immunity for declaratory judgment claims. See § 768.28(1), Fla. Stat. Nor does section 1009.24 waive sovereign immunity or authorize a cause of action for refunds of unlawfully charged fees. Cf. § 215.26(1), Fla....

...As a part of the purchase price rela-tors paid to the wholesalers for ultimate remittance to the respondent, Green, Florida Comptroller, state imposed excise taxes. The taxes were paid at rates prescribed by Section 561.46, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., in effect at the time of payment. By timely application in accord with Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., rela-tors sought a refund of taxes in the amount of $311,381.03, paid during the critical period....

...Brown, Fla., 55 So.2d 334 . In the second place, if respondent were correct regarding the claimed invalidity of the statute, the relators would still be entitled to the relief sought. The money was collected by the state, when no taxes were due by the relators. Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorizes recovery under such circumstances....

...ct. (2) The relators were all instrumentalities of the federal government and were therefore not subject to state taxation of the type involved when the taxes were paid and collected. *551 (3) The relators are entitled to have returned to them under Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the amount' of the taxes -severally paid by them while Chapter 61-271, supra, was in effect....

...Appellant’s stock was assessed on this basis pursuant to Section 199.02 as amended by Chapter 61-159. Following unsuccessful administrative appeals appellant paid, under protest, the tax levied on the stock and filed requisition for refund pursuant to Section 215.26, F.S.A., which was denied....

...Of that total amount fifty percent, or $6,132,068.60, was subject to tax. The total tax Seminole Electric paid, pursuant to authority granted to it to self-accrue tax, for the six-month period the tax was imposed was $306,603.43. Seminole Electric applied for a tax refund under section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1987)....