Balance due letter received from State - wants flex fuel refund back....

i filed the amendment on February 12th (online) Remember, they held my return until March 25th. Then, it was worked by audit.

Pecan, I have not spoken with anyone since the letter. I wrote an objection letter, which was the only other option presented in the letter other than to pay the funds back. The problem I have with this letter is that WHY WOULD THEY SEND IT BEFORE A DECISION HAS BEEN REACHED? Until they disallow this, the law says that the refund belongs to me. how can they send a tax payer to collections for money that is rightfully belonging to a taxpayer? I think this is blatant discrimination and illegal practice....

are you the same guy that was claiming discrimination and had your thread deleted a few days ago?

Is this your new attempt at a black panther party?

Reddog,
I completely understand your frustration, especially since you feel you’ve been singled out, however, I sincerely feel you will soon not feel so alone as the DOR has two choices: 1. Let the refunds issued to date stand and be bombarded with many complaints after other taxpayers’ refunds as such aren’t processed or 2. Continue issuing refunds to others who have purchased flex fuel vehicles which in the end will cost Louisiana hundreds of thousands of dollars it doesn’t have.

In fact, it would probably be considered illegal not to recall ALL of the E85 refunds if the Department determines (or has determined, whichever is the case) that the refunds aren’t legit as a State agency cannot give away public funds.

I still remember cringing when the Customer Service Rep from the DOR told me that even the E10 vehicles qualify for the refunds.
I have been following this “Tax credit for conversion of vehicles to alternative fuel usage” since it was enacted in 1991 as Act No. 1060 effective for all taxable periods beginning after December 31, 1990. It was R.S. 47:38 at that time.

Here is how the problem we are in today started:
The 2009 legislature made some changes to the bill….some big changes….not only did they increase the credit and make it a refundable credit rather a non-refundable credit that could be carried forward 3 years, they also made one other big change. They added to the definition of “Qualified clean-burning motor vehicle fuel property” as follows: “……and shall not include equipment necessary for operation of a motor vehicle on gasoline or diesel”.

When this bill was being tossed around in committees prior to the approval, the word “but” was where the word “and” is….probably due to the constitutional usage of “and” in laws, the “but” was changed to “and” prior to the legislators voting on the bill which was approved as is known as 2009 Regular Session, Act No. 469.

The new Statute is now R.S. 47:6035 and is applicable to amounts paid by the taxpayer on and after January 1, 2009.

Here’s the kicker: Revenue Information Bulletin No. 09-029 dated December 17, 2009 was issued by the Secretary of the Department of Revenue. You can search for the bulletin on the DOR site and read it. (Note on the bottom of the bulletin where it says “A RIB does not have the force and effect of law and is not binding on the public or the Department.)

Anyway, in this bulletin, Ms. Bridges reported on the new statute R.S. 47:6035 and the fact that it repealed R.S. 47:38. She also reported that the credit had increased and is now refundable. She did not state in her bulletin that the definition of the property eligible for the refund had changed……and no longer includes vehicles that can run on gasoline or diesel alone.

H&R Block’s advertisement tells me how this credit may have gotten out of hand. When I first read the Bulletin in 2009, I went to the statute itself and found the new definition, therefore, I couldn’t advertise to my clients the credit when I saw the new part of the definition.

However…I’m certainly not an attorney by any means so don’t give up hope. The “Policy Division” is the DOR’s legal section and before I found this discussion on this thread, I had contacted them for guidance for my clients (because I’m not an attorney, I can’t stop at my opinion and wanted to hear it from the “horses’ mouth” before I sent out notices to all of my clients to file amended returns) and was told that they were reviewing the situation.

I just bought an E85 today as a matter of fact so I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you and all of us!

If you find you must pay your refund back, insist that you send in installments…..interest free. I’ll be happy to document for you the day I called the DOR and was told “by all means, file amended returns for all of your clients for any flex fuel vehicle they purchased….an E10 or E85…it makes no difference!" I've been a tax practictioner for 39 years and I'll be happy to write a letter for you to document my conversation about the refunds with the Customer Service Department. If push comes to shove, just let me know!

Thanks, DuckSlayer!

When a President says "we must simplify the tax code" I cringe as every time it's simplified it only gets more confusing and more lengthy.

More and more of my clients want to know "why", and it's getting harder and harder to explain to them "why" as there are too many incosistencies in both the Fed and La codes. "Fairness" must not be in the vocabulary of those legislators writing the tax codes.

I got an email directly from the state saying that Flex Fuel did not qualify, that the vehicle must burn strictly on alternative fuels

however I know people who have received the refund claiming it with flex fuel vehicles, I suspect they will slowly be receiving similar notices asking for it back