Tax Class Action Litigation

Related pages at this Web site

• Electronic Commerce
• Electronic Evidence and Records Retention
• Geo-coding of local jurisdictions
• Local Sales, Excise, and Gross Receipts Taxes
• Property Tax and Appraisal Records
• State Sales, Use, and Excise Taxes
• Telecommunications
• Will Yancey's Home Page

• AB Cellular-LA, LLC doing business as AT & T Wireless and Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless v. City of Los Angeles, No. B185373, California Appeals, Second Appellate District, May 9, 2007), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B185373.PDF Appealed from Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The carriers sued the City of Los Angeles for imposing a city tax on wireless service without obtaining voter approval as required by California's Proposition 218. The appellate court ruled in favor of the carriers and held that the city's tax is unconstitutional.
• AB Cellular-LA, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5502, 2003 WL 21290906, CCH-STATE-CASE-APP-CT, CA-TAXRPTR, ¶403-470, (Cal. Appeals - 2nd District, unpublished, June 5, 2003).   AB Cellular, doing business as AT&T Wireless,  asserted it could not accurately collect a City tax on cellular telephone customers because the City did not provide an adequate address database of customers residing in the City.  Cellular provided specific evidence of how it repeatedly attempted to get an accurate database from the City.  City auditor determined assessment by sampling 6,500 bills from one billing cycle within one month of audit period.  Trial court ruled in favor of the city.  Appellate court overturned and ruled in favor of the taxpayer because of the City's failure to provide an adequate address database.  [Note:  Subsequently the City of Los Angeles did publish an address database.]
• Ackerman et al v. International Business Machine v. Iowa Department of Revenue, 337 N.W.2d 486, CCH-STATE-CASE-HIGH-CT, IA-TAXRPTR, ¶00019,  (Iowa Supreme Court, August 17, 1983).   Plaintiff  filed a class action on the grounds that  IBM illegally charged $20.42 Iowa sales tax on two machine service agreements in violation of law and contrary to contract provisions.   Apellate court sustained  trial court's decision to dismiss.
• Allen v. AT&T, Case No. CJ-99-2168, (Muskogee County District Court, Oklahoma, May 31, 2002).   Lead plaintiffs, Bobby Gene Allen and Deborah Jane Allen, filed a class action lawsuit alleging their long-distance telephone provider, AT&T, improperly charged the 3.25% Muskogee city sales tax despite the fact they lived outside the city limits of Muskogee.  AT&T acknowledged that the "Outside City Limits" indicator was improperly set for some customers and that AT&T was trying to correct the problem.  Plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of all AT&T customers in Oklahoma and 27 other states that have local sales taxes.   AT&T protested the definition of the class to include customers in other states on the grounds that Oklahoma courts should not make tax determinations for other states and other grounds.  Trial court judge did certify the class to include Oklahoma and the 27 other states.
• Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Second Division, Case No. 97,916, http://www.mtc.gov/meetings/OK%20Ct%20on%20Rehearing%20ATT%20v%20Allen.pdf (June 10, 2003) sustained the trial court's certification of the class.
  
• Supreme Court of Oklahoma (September 29, 2003) declined to review the case. 
• US Supreme Court, Docket No. 03-1046, www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-1046.htm (April 26, 2004) denied petition for a writ of certiorari.
• Amicus brief filed by Council on State Taxation, http://www.statetax.org/Template.cfm?Section=Briefs_Filed&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5085
• News story on settlement in "Class Action Settlement No Victory for Corporations:  More Multi-State Collection Cases Could Follow" 3(5) Sales & Use Tax Monitor 1 (March 15, 2005).
• Arkansas Department of Revenue v. Staton, No. 96-215, http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996a/961028/96-215.html (Arkansas Supreme Court, October 28, 1996).  Consumer class action lawsuit asserted sales tax was illegally collected on the sale of extended warranty service contracts for motor vehicles.  The state supreme court agreed that the extended warranty service contracts were not taxable.  However, the supreme court denied certification of the class.
• AT & T v. Robbie Rudolph, (E. D. Kentucky, 2007). Court held that telecommunications provider had the right to inform customers of the Kentucky gross receipts tax. See also Clark et al. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., No. 3:04-CV-735H (W.D. Kentucky, May 28, 2007)
• Atwood v. City of Palo Alto, Case Number 1-06-CV-057086 (Santa Clara County Superior Court, filed January 30, 2006). Case status at http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-06-CV-057086. Taxpayer class action claims the city llegally and erroneously collected money from residents (about $10-$27 million) via a tax on nationwide services offered by cellular companies.
• Burgess v. Gallery Model Homes, Inc. et al, No. 01-01-01014-CV, 101 S.W.3d 550, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 750, www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=82997 (Texas Court of Appeals, First District, January 23, 2003).   Taxpayer filed class action lawsuit alleging retailers improperly collected local metropolitan transit authority (MTA) tax on deliveries to customers outside the MTA area.   Appeals court dismissed the suit because the taxpayer had not exhausted administrative remedies with state Comptroller.
• Butcher v. Ameritech Corporation, No. 2005AP2355, http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27533 CCH STATE-CASE-APP-CT, STATE-ARD, ¶ 400-960, (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, December 21, 2006). In a class action case customers of a phone company sought the return of millions of dollars that the phone company charged and collected in unauthorized Wisconsin sales and use taxes. Appellate court upheld the lower court's dismissal of the complaint was based upon the voluntary payment doctrine. Because the customers did not challenge the unauthorized tax either before voluntarily making payment, or at the time of voluntarily making payment, they could not seek a return of their payment after the fact. Although the phone company's bill did not inform their customers regarding which services it was collecting sales tax on, the court held that it was the customers' duty to make an inquiry of the phone company regarding which services were being taxed prior to making their payments. The customers' argument that the mistake of fact exception should apply to the voluntary payment doctrine in this case failed because "every person is presumed to know the law and that is why a mistake of law is not an exception to the voluntary payment doctrine."
• California Nurseries and Garden Centers (Los Angeles County, 2002).   Class action lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County against several nurseries/garden centers alleging the unlawful charging of sales tax on fertilizer.  See http://www.cangc.org/legislative/taxes.asp
• City of Jefferson et al. v. Cingular Wireless et al., No. 04-4099-CV-C-MKL (W.D. Mo. October 17, 2006). Wireless telecommunications providers refused to collect the sales tax imposed by Missouri cities. The federal district court dismissed the case.
• City of Philadelphia v. Hotels.com, (Phildelphia, July 2005). City of Philadelphia asserted that hotel reservation services should be paying hotel sales tax on the hotel room price charged to their retail customers not on the lower bulk rates paid by the reservation service to the hotel. City relied on its interpretation of section 2402 of Chapter 19 of the Philadelphia Municipal Code. City is represented by the law firm of Berger & Montague - probably on a contingency fee. See www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122627913300
• City of Somerset v. Bell et al, No. 2003-CA-001522-MR, http://www.kycourts.net/Appeals/COA_Opinions.shtm (Kentucky Court of Appeals, January 12, 2005).  Court certified class action for ad valorem property tax refund. Subsequently the Kentucky Legislature amended tax refund statues to prevent class actions for this type of tax refund (Kentucky Laws 2005, Ch. 112 (H.B. 498)).
• City of Springfield v. Sprint Spectrum, No. SC87238; City of St. Louis v. Sprint Spectrum, No. SC87400, http://www.courts.mo.gov/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/9e84ca5683130a6d8625727a0079892a?OpenDocument, (Supreme Court of Missouri en banc, August 8, 2006). Court held the cities' gross receipts business license tax on wireless service did not meet the statutory requirements.
• City of University City et al v. AT&T Wireless et al., Case No. 01CC-004454, (St Louis County (Missouri) Circuit Court Division 10, original petition filed January 8, 2002). Plaintiff class action by 22 Missouri cities against 18 wireless companies doing business in Missouri.  Plaintiffs are seeking to collect local business or occupation license taxes based on gross receipts for wireless services. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and an accounting.
• In 2005, Missouri enacted HB 209 to limit class actions by cities regarding business taxes against telecommunications companies.
• Clark et al. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., No. 3:04-CV-735H (W.D. Kentucky, May 28, 2007). Class action against BellSouth for overcollecting sales tax on DSL high speed Internet access. From the beginning, BellSouth collected a 6% Kentucky sales tax from its customers. Although initially the Revenue Department allowed the collection of sales tax, the Department later prohibited its collection. Customers of BellSouth sued BellSouth for collecting sales tax for the period before it sought permission from the Revenue Department, and asserted that the Internet Tax Freedom Act and Kentucky law clearly prohibited imposing a tax on Internet services, including DSL. Settlement reached in 2007.
• DuPont Glore Forgan, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 428 F.Supp. 1297 (SD N.Y. 1977), affirmed, 578 F.2d 1366 (2nd Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 US 970 (1978). Federal court denied class action against telecommunications provider alleging overpayment of federal excise tax. Appellate court held that suit may be brought only against the US government.
• FMS, Inc. v. Dell Computer Corporation, King County (Washington) Superior Court No. 03-2-23781-7SEA, (complaint filed April 23, 2003).  Plaintiff consumer class action alleged defendant improperly collected sales tax from consumers on the purchase of optional extended warranty service contracts.  Seeks a refund of the tax, treble damages, and attorney's fees.
• Food Lion, (Tennessee state court, 2002). Food Lion settled a class action filed by a consumer group by offering 28-cent coupons to customers who held an MVP discount card between 1995 and 1998. The plaintiff class alleged that Food Lion charged too much sales tax on discounted products purchased with the discount card. ("Attention Shoppers: Food Lion Rebate Due" Greensboro News & Record, Feb. 25, 2002.)
• General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) v. City of Red Bay, 894 So.2d 650, Alabama Supreme Court Docket No. 1020294, http://www.wallacejordan.com/decisions/Opinions2002/1000970.htm (Alabama Supreme Court, June 25, 2004). City of Red Bay and Franklin County filed a class action suit alleging GMAC failed to collect and remit local sales taxes on its vehicle leases. Trial court certified the class in 2001. Alabama Supreme Court found that the city and county failed to follow the procedures and provide for taxpayer appeals as required under the Alabama Taxpayers' Bill of Rights.   Supreme Court ordered trial court to vacate the class certification order.
• General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) v. DuBose, Alabama Supreme Court Docket No. 1001060, 834 So.2d 67, http://www.wallacejordan.com/decisions/Opinions2002/1001060r.htm (Alabama Supreme Court, revised May 3, 2002).  Plaintiff consumer class action alleged defendant over collected Alabama rental tax on vehicle lease agreements.  Court held that class certification was not proper.
• Getto v. City of Chicago, 86 Ill. 2d 39, 426 N.E. 2d 844 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1981). Class action claimed Illinois Bell improperly billed surcharge for cost of state message tax. Bell was required to pay a settlement.
• Gottlieb v. City of South Euclid,  No. 83399, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 2409, (Ohio Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County, Eighth District, May 27, 2004).   Appellate court dismissed certification of a class in an action to recover a local Ohio license fee.  There was no evidence that the class representatives paid the fee under protest.  Further, the taxpayer failed to show that the members of the class, as restricted to those paying the fee under protest, were so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable.
• Hooks v. Maryland, 289 A.2d 332 (Md. Supreme Court, 1972). Taxicab driver paid sales tax to lessor. Filed class action claiming illegal tax. Court dismissed the class action.
• Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Joseph Anza, 254 F.Supp.2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), vacated, 373 F.3d 251 (US 2nd Cir. July 2, 2004), reversed in part and remanded www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-433.htm, www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-433.pdf, (US Supreme Court, June 5, 2006). Ideal Steel Supply Corp. collected New York state and local sales tax.  National Steel Supply, a competitor located a short distance away, did not collect the state and local sales tax. Ideal sued National under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). Ideal pleaded that its lost sales were proximately caused by National's pattern of offering customers lower bottom line cost by means of the unlawful omission of state sales tax. Ideal alleged National concealed those omissions by means of mail and wire fraud. District court dismissed the case on the grounds of an inadequate pleading. The Second Circuit appellate court agreed with Ideal and reinstated the case. The US Supreme Court remanded to the appellate court.
• Illinois ex rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond v. Ritz Camera Centers, Inc., No. 02 L 869 (Cir. Ct. Illinois Cook County, January 13, 2005). Between September 2001 and May 2003, Beller Schad (a Chicago-based law firm) filed sixty separate lawsuits under the Illinois Whistleblower Act alleging retailers made sales to Illinois residents from out-of-state locations without collecting required Illinois sales tax. In September 2003 the Illinois Attorney General intervened and took primary responsibilities as the plaintiff. Judge Ronald F. Bartkowicz, however, denied the retailers’ motion to dismiss.
• Amicus Brief filed by Council on State Taxation (COST) on July 11, 2005, http://www.statetax.org/Template.cfm?Section=Briefs_Filed&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6747
• International Game Technology, Inc. v. Second Judicial District of Nevada; State of Nevada et al. v. Eighth Judicial District of Nevada; State of Nevada ex rel Beeler, Schad, & Diamond, PC, Nos. 43882 and 43953, www.leg.state.nv.us/scd/122NevAdvOpNo13.pdf, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=122NevAdvOpNo13&invol=2 , (Nevada Supreme Court, February 9, 2000). Two different plaintiff groups brought qui tam actions alleging evasion of Nevada sales taxes. Nevada Attorney General moved to dismiss those cases. Nevada Supreme Court sustained the dismissal.
• Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines, 109 F.3d 349 (7th Cir., 1997). Class action claimed the airline improperly collected federal excise tax on airline ticket in 1995 for air travel in 1996. This federal tax expired at end of 1995. Court dismissed the case.
• Kawa v. Wakefern Food et al, Docket No. 008717-2006, (New Jersey Tax Court, April 3, 2008). Court dismissed plaintiff class action alleging grocery stores overcharged sales tax on items purchased at discount prices.
.
• Kutis Funeral Homes, St. Louis County (Missouri) Circuit Court (2003). Plaintiff consumer class action sought to add as defendants all funeral homes that charged customers sales tax on vaults. The Missouri Department of Revenue was served with a subpoena seeking the identity of all parties that reported the sales tax on the sales of vaults.
• Larrieu et al v. Wal-mart Stores et al, No. 2003 CA 0600, 2004 WL 324962, www.la-fcca.org/Opinions/PUB2004/2004-02/2003CA0600.Feb2004.Pub.34.pdf   Larrieu et al v. Terrebone Parish et al, No. 2003 CA 0943, www.la-fcca.org/Opinions/PUB2004/2004-02/2003CA0934.Feb2004.Pub.34.pdf (Louisiana Appeals Court, First Circuit, February 23, 2004).   Plaintiff class action suit alleged that Wal-mart and other retailers collected too much state and local sales tax on pre-paid telephone calling cards.  Court dismissed the case and  held the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing this suit.
• Lacey Nursing Center, Inc. et al. v. State of Washington, Department of Revenue,  No. 62079-2, 128 Wash.2d 40, 905 P.2d 338, (Washington Supreme Court, November 2, 1995).  Supreme Court denied certification of a class of nursing homes suing for a partial business and occupation tax exemption for the sale or rental of real estate.  Held that taxpayers must specifically identify themselves to apply for a tax refund.
• Lawler v. Cablevision System Corp., 2007 N. Y. Slip Opinion 50580(U), (Mary 22, 2007). Consumer plaintiff class action claimed the taxes on Cablevision's online service were not adequately disclosed. The court held that it could be a deceptive practice and authorized the suit to proceed.
• Lawrence Mall of New Haven, Inc. v City of West Haven, No. CV030478088, CCH-STATE-CASE-TRL-CT, CT-TAXRPTR, ¶400-923, (Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, January 20, 2004).   Court certified a class action where class consisted of taxpayers who were delinquent in paying city taxes.  City of West Haven charged a 15% collection fee in addition to the state-authorized 8% interest on delinquencies.
• Levy et al v. OfficeMax, Inc. et al, Cause No. 03-06-00391-CV, http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=15964, (Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, June 19, 2007). Appellate court upheld consumers' right to ask district court for an injunction compelling the retailers to assign to the consumers the right to pursue a sales tax refund with the Texas Comptroller.
• Levy et al v. OfficeMax, Inc. et al, Cause No. D-1-GN-02-001252, (Travis County, 53rd Judicial District). Plaintiff class action claims a refund for persons who paid sales tax on rebates. Plaintiff seeks seeks declaratory judgment interpreting Texas Tax Code Sections pertaining to cash discounts and exemption from sales tax. Claims against Texas Comptroller were dismissed. Case remains pending against the retailers.
• Long Distance Telephone Service Federal Excise Tax Refund Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1798, http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/Pending_MDLs/Miscellaneous/MDL-1798/mdl-1798.html (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, transfer date December 28, 2006) including:
  
  • Belloni et al v. Verizon et al, CA No. 1:06-11459, (S. D. New York, filed October 30, 2006), http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2006cv11459/case_id-292256/
  • Sloan et al. v. US, filed March 2006 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PJR/is_16_4/ai_n16126042/pg_2. Plaintiff class action on behalf of all taxpayers who paid less than $100,000 in federal excise tax who have not filed a refund claim with the IRS.
• McGuire v. Ameritech Cellular, 731 N.E.2d 343, (Ill. App. Ct. 1st District, 2000). Class action claimed Ameritech collected Chicago city tax on calls that did not originate in the city. Plaintiffs wanted to litigate the legality of the tax, but brought their case as a breach of contract by Ameritech. Court ruled in favor of Ameritech.
• Nevada ex. rel. McAndrews v. Int’l Game Tech., Inc., No. CV03-01329 (Washoe County, 2d. Jud. Dist. 2003), a former employee of a Nevada gaming company filed a qui tam action against the company, claiming that it had avoided paying up to $30 million in sales and use taxes since 1997. The former employee had alleged direct fraud on the grounds that the company knowingly accepted resale certificates from an unregistered company for purchases that the company knew were not for resale.
• Nielsen v. Expedia, Inc. et al., No. 05-00365JCC (W. D. Wash., filed by removal March 7, 2005), http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/WAWD/CASELIST.NSF/64816dac731e4808882564c00067c41d/051573e78dfb953188256fbe0004c248?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,expedia  Plaintiff consumer class action alleges Expedia engaged in deceptive trade practice in describing taxes and fees on hotel room reservations.  Allege that Expedia collected taxes without disclosing the actual tax due and failed to remit such taxes to the appropriate taxing authority.
• Parker v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 2002 WL 31168571, http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/7/2002/2002-ohio-5212.pdf (Ohio App. 7th District, September 26, 2002).  Plaintiff consumer class action alleged retailer improperly calculated sales tax on double coupons.  Appellate court hold that action should be brought in Court of Claims rather than Court of Common Pleas.  Appellate court held the Ohio Tax Commissioner rather than retailer was the proper defendant.
• P. J.'s Concrete Pumping Service, Inc. v. Nextel West Corp., No. 2-02-1219, 2004 WL 171546, www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2004/2ndDistrict/January/Html/2021219.htm  (Ill. Appeals Court, Second District, January 27, 2004, rehearing denied February 26, 2004).  Appeals court certified a class-action lawsuit filed in Cook County against Nextel for a refund of local taxes collected by Nextel.  Nextel billed local taxes based on zip code and incorrectly billed city utility and gross receipts tax to some customers outside the city limits.  The class action implicated the tax ordinances of over 1,000 local governments and the laws of 17 states.
• US Supreme Court, Docket No. 04-263,  Petition for certiorari denied, November 1, 2004, www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-263.htm 
  
• P. R. Marketing Group, Inc. v. GTE Florida and Department of Revenue, Case No. 2D00-4809, 806 So.2d 597, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/floridastatecases/app/app2_2_2002/2d00-4809.pdf (Florida Court of Appeals, Second District, February 1, 2002).  Appellate court sustained trial court's summary judgment in favor of GTE and Department of Revenue.  Appellate court recommended that Florida legislature clarify the statute.
• P. R. Marketing Group, Inc. v. GTE Florida and Department of Revenue, Case No. 98-02561, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fl&vol=98-02561&invol=1 (Florida Court of Appeals, Second District, August 20, 1999).  Plaintiff consumer class action alleged that GTE and Department of Revenue's practice of using the bracket method of taxation for long distance telephone calls resulted in an overcharge of tax.
• Ring v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Docket No. 80493, 969 S.W.2d 716, CCH-STATE-CASE-HIGH-CT, MO-TAXRPTR, ¶202-164, (Missouri Supreme Court en banc, May 26, 1998), Supreme Court allowed class action lawusit by Missouri taxpayers who paid increased local wastewater fees that were subsequently held unconstitutional. They were were not required to follow the statutory refund procedure. Taxpayers could enforce the provision under which the fee increase was held unconstitutional by either seeing an injunction to enjoin the illegal tax collection or timely filing suit for refund. Court cites the following case for the proposition that "Beatty III left open the question whether a class action is the proper procedure by which ... taxpayers ... could recover their overpayment."
• Beatty v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 914 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. en banc 1995), cites with approval RSMO Section 536.067(1), which permits class actions, and MRCP Rule 52.08 (on Class Actions), and points out that plaintiffs had not asked for a class action and the trial court had not followed the rule to certify one, thus leaving the question open as noted above.
• Rosenberg (Linda) v. US, 72 Fed. Cl. 387, Docket No. 05-1272T, http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Braden/06/BRADEN.Rosenberg080306.pdf, (Court of Federal Claims, August 3, 2006). Affirmed without opinion 2007 US App. LEXIS 11531 (Federal Circuit May 8, 2007). Plainitff class action challenged how the IRS requires taxpayers to file refund claim for federal excise tax on telecommunications. Court held that the collection of the tax is not a taking within the meaning of Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Court held the Uniformity Clause applies only to acts of Congress, and not to how the IRS administers the tax.
• Sanchez v. City of Los Angeles, No. B163744, 2004 WL 60766, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 288, CCH-STATE-CASE-APP-CT, CA-TAXRPTR, ¶403-592, (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, unpublished, January 14, 2004).  Sprint PCS assessed the 10 percent Los Angeles utility user tax on the total amount of a customer's monthly telephone bill.   AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless, in contrast, assessed the tax only on a $20 "imputed fixed monthly access fee," and not on charges for airtime.  Diana Sanchez, a Los Angeles resident, filed a class action against the city for a refund of the added tax she paid because Sprint used a higher taxable base than its competitors.  She also sued AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless alleging unfair competition.  District court dismissed her suit.  Appellate court partially overturned and remanded the case back to the district court.
• Sanchez v. Pasadena, No. B180211, (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, February 8, 2006). Plaintiff Diana Sanchez filed an amended class action regarding wireless taxes. The appellate court dismissed this amended case.
• Stork et al v. BellSouth and Palm Beach County, 847 So. 2d 1098, www.4dca.org/June2003/06-18-03/4D02-2341.pdf (District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, June 18, 2003).  Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against telecommunications provider and county alleging excessive collection of local public service taxes.  Court held that the same administrative remedies apply to county as provided for municipalities.  Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to follow administrative remedies.
• U-Haul Company of Alabama, Inc. v. Johnson, Supreme Court Docket No. 1021726, 2004 WL 1079804, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=al&vol=1021726&invol=2 (Alabama Supreme Court, 2004).  Held that certification of class was improper because trial court failed to consider the company's voluntary payment defense.
• Utility Reform Project v. Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Marion County (Oregon) Circuit Court No. 03C21227, http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A103670.htm (order dated June 2, 2004).  Plaintiff class action alleged that during Public Utility Commission rate setting proceedings Enron and Portland General Electric (PGE) presented deceptive reports of the amount of state and local taxes paid.