Grall v. Bugher
| Decision Date | 23 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2855.,92-2855. |
| Citation | 532 N.W.2d 122,193 Wis.2d 65 |
| Parties | John GRALL, Steven Cridelich and Kimberly Cridelich, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, v. Mark BUGHER, Director of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there were briefs by Charles Barnhill, Sarah Siskind and Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, Madison and oral argument by Charles Barnhill.
For the defendants-respondents the cause was argued by Gerald S. Wilcox, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
John Grall, Steven Cridelich and Kimberly Cridelich (taxpayers) sued Mark Bugher in his official capacity as Director of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (Department) claiming that the "manufacturer's rebate" they received in connection with their new automobile purchases should not have been subject to the five percent sales tax. They sought a refund together with injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
At the time the taxpayers filed their complaint, February 28, 1992, sec. 77.59(4), Stats., read in relevant part as follows:
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3m), at any time within 4 years after the due date of a person's corresponding Wisconsin income or franchise tax return or, if exempt, within 4 years of the 15th day of the 4th month of the year following the close of the calendar or fiscal year for which that person files a claim, that person may, unless a determination by the department by office or field audit has been made, file with the department a claim for refund of taxes paid to the department by that person.... (Emphasis added.)
Under this version of sec. 77.59(4), the taxpayers could not file a claim for a refund because they were not the parties who paid the taxes to the State as required by the statute. See also Dairyland Harvestore v. DOR, 151 Wis. 2d 799, 805-06, 447 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1989) ().
Since the taxpayers and the Department filed their briefs to this court, however, the statute was amended. On September 1, 1994, 1993 Wis. Act 437 § 159 came into effect which authorizes those taxpayers with claims of at least $50 to file for a refund. The statute provides:
(4)(a) Except as provided in sub. (3m), at any time within 4 years after the due date, or in the case of buyers the unextended due date, of a person's corresponding Wisconsin income or franchise tax return or, if exempt, within 4 years of the 15th day of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals
...292, 240 N.W.2d at 617; see Grall v. Bugher, 181 Wis.2d 163, 168, 511 N.W.2d 336, 338 (Ct.App.1993), rev'd on other grounds, 193 Wis.2d 65, 532 N.W.2d 122 (1995). Walker argues that any judgment against the hospital in this case would not implicate state funds because the hospital obtains l......
-
Anhalt v. CITIES AND VILLAGES MUTUAL INS. CO.
...course of their employment." ¶ 14. In Grall v. Bugher, 181 Wis. 2d 163, 511 N.W.2d 336 (Ct. App. 1993),rev'd on other grounds,193 Wis. 2d 65, 532 N.W.2d 122 (1995), we observed that waiver of governmental immunity must be clear and express. "It is well established that the sovereign's immun......
-
Ozga Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources
...state agencies except the dissent in Grall v. Bugher, 181 Wis.2d 163, 511 N.W.2d 336 (Ct.App.1993), rev'd on other grounds, --- Wis.2d ---, 532 N.W.2d 122 (1995). However, the majority in Grall clearly affirmed the principle of sovereign immunity and the requirement that there be an express......