Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1999

Playmates Toys Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided December 21, 1999 · Per Curiam

742 A.2d 968; 162 N.J. 186; 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1652 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Hill v. Director, Division of Taxation (New Jersey Tax Court 2013)
Lenox, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation (New Jersey Tax Court 2002)
J & J Snack Foods Sales Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation (New Jersey Tax Court 2013)
Borromeo v. DIFLORIO (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009)
New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Serv. v. Jy (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002)
State v. INTERN. FED., LOCAL (N.J. 2001)
New Jersey Department of Labor v. Pepsi-Cola Co. (N.J. 2001)
State v. International Federation of Professional & Engineers, Local 195 (N.J. 2001)
Quigley v. KPMG PEAT MARWICK, LIP (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000)
IN THE MATTER OF CONTESTING OF INVOICE FOR FY 2019 FLEMINGTON WET WEATHER FACILITY (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division allowing the Director of the Division of Taxation to recover a refund mistakenly paid to a taxpayer after the statute of limitations had passed on the taxpayer’s right to seek a refund for overpayments in prior years. We do so substantially for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division in its opinion reported at 316 N.J.Super. 509, 720 A.2d 655 (1998). We add only that this judgment does not confer on the Division of Taxation an unlimited inherent authority to correct and revise erroneous tax determinations once made. The powers of the Division are not boundless. Rather, given the administrative history of the Division’s earlier determination (communicated to the taxpayer) that the taxpayer was not entitled to a refund because of the statute of limitations, the recovery of the funds here is more akin to the correction of a clerical error that led to the mailing of a tax refund check to which the taxpayer was not entitled, rather than the correction of an error in judgment. See Lockwood v. Walsh, 137 N.J. Eq. 445, 450, 45 A.2d 305 (Prerog.Ct. 1946) (implying that State Tax Commissioner possesses inherent authority to correct error of mathematical calculation).

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG and YERNIERO—

Opposed — none.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.