Summary
recognizing that state agencies have the inherent power to correct clerical mistakes, especially where the agency has the responsibility to take in or disburse monies
Summary of this case from In re Contesting of Invoice for Fy 2019 Flemington Wet Weather FacilityOpinion
No. A-70 1998.
Argued September 27, 1999.
Decided December 21, 1999.
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 316 N.J. Super. 509 (1998).
Michael A. Guariglia argued the cause for appellant (McCarter English, attorneys; Mr. Guariglia and Margaret C. Wilson, on the briefs).
Marlene G. Brown, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Joseph L. Yannotti, Former Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).
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 (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 (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.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, and VERNIERO — 7.
Opposed — none.