Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Graham

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• deciding that because Citibank “had no statutory obligation to pay, remit or prove payment of any tax” but was “simply a third-party lender,” its recourse is against defaulting consumers, not state under general refund statute
• noting that lender’s recourse is “against the consumer who defaulted on the debt or possibly through any provisions in the Program contracts assigning responsibility for bad debts among the various parties,” rather than under bad debt statute
• noting that, when the General Assembly provided for a tax refund in a different statutory provision, “we must presume that the legislature’s failure to provide a refund under [the statute at issue] was a matter of considered choice” (punctuation omitted)
• noting that, when the General Assembly provided for a tax refund in a different statutory provision, “we must presume that the legislature’s failure to provide a refund under [the statute at issue] was a matter of considered choice” (punctuation omitted)
• noting that, when the General Assembly provided for a tax refund in a different statutory provision, “we must presume that the legislature’s failure to provide a refund under [the statute at issue] was a matter of considered choice” (punctuation omitted)
• interpreting prior version of OCGA § 48-2-35, and explaining that under that statute, \[o]nly the taxpayer who has the burden of paying the tax may receive a refund of sales tax paid\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).