Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Georgia Dep't of Revenue v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

July 16, 2014

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
v.
MOORE

Joinder. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Wright.

Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Warren R. Calvert, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Frances C. Mulderig, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Cohen, Cooper, Estep & Allen, Jeffrey L. Cohen, Jefferson M. Allen, for appellee.

PHIPPS, Chief Judge. Ellington, P. J., and Dillard, J., concur.

OPINION

Page 185

Phipps, Chief Judge.

This is the second appearance of this business sales and use tax case before this court. In the first appearance, Ga. Dept. of Revenue v. Moore,[1] this court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, which had reversed the final administrative decision of the [328 Ga.App. 351] Georgia Department of Revenue (the Department) regarding the tax liability of Richard Moore, a corporate officer.[2] We found that, by voluntarily refunding to the corporation's majority owner, Thomas Turrentine, a portion of the taxes owed, the Department forfeited any right it had to recoup from Moore the payment it made to Turrentine.[3]

The Department appealed and, in Ga. Dept. of Revenue v. Moore,[4] the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed our decision, holding that " [t]he voluntary payment doctrine set forth in OCGA § 13-1-13 is a concept applicable to contracts, not tax indebtedness." [5] Citing OCGA § 9-11-19 (a) (2), the Court remanded the case for us " to consider the issue of whether Moore was a necessary party to Turrentine's refund action, and, if so, what consequences would follow in relation to this appeal." [6]

" Upon our review of the superior court's actions, the evidence is construed in favor of the agency's decision. Both the superior court and this [c]ourt review conclusions of law de novo." [7] For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the superior court.

OCGA § 9-11-19 (a) pertinently provides:

A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if: ... (2) [h]e claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may: (A) [a]s a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; or (B) [l]eave any of the persons who are already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. ...

[328 Ga.App. 352] It is undisputed that Moore and Turrentine were " responsible persons" of the corporation within the meaning of OCGA § 48-2-52,[8] and that they were jointly obligated

Page 186

to pay the corporation's sales and use taxes. The parties have not cited, nor have we found, any cases specifically addressing whether a responsible person[9] is a necessary party (within the meaning of OCGA § 9-11-19) to a refund action brought by another responsible person. Inasmuch as both OCGA § § 48-2-52 and 9-11-19 are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.