In a recently issued opinion by the First District Court of Appeal (“First DCA”) in No. 1D2024-2098, the court addressed the question of whether interest must be paid (and whether mandamus relief is available) when a tax refund warrant has been issued by the Florida Department of Revenue (the “Department”) but does not include interest. The outcome provides a useful reminder of the interplay between refund statutes and interest statutes under Florida law.
Facts
SEI Fuel Services, Inc. (“SEI”) had previously obtained a favorable decision in SEI Fuel I (379 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) in which the court held that SEI was entitled to a refund of a double payment of motor-fuel taxes under § 206.41, Fla. Stat., and that the refund statute § 215.26(1), Fla. Stat., covered overpayments, taxes where no tax was due, or payments made in error.
Following that decision, a warrant for the refund amount was issued by the CFO (on behalf of the Department) but the warrant omitted interest. SEI’s argument: interest is required under § 213.255, Fla. Stat., when there’s an overpayment, payment of tax where none was due, or tax paid in error (so long as the refund application is timely and complete). The statute also sets rules for when interest begins and at what rate.
SEI filed a petition for writ of mandamus in circuit court asking the court to compel the Department to issue interest. The circuit court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and because SEI allegedly did not show an entitlement to mandamus relief.
Legal Issues
- Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction.
- Whether SEI was entitled to interest under § 213.255.
Court’s Analysis
Jurisdiction: The Department had defended against the refund claim under a “chapter 120” administrative challenge. However, the interest claim emerged after the refund amount was determined and the refund warrant issued. The court held that § 72.011(1)(a), Fla. Stat., which allows a taxpayer to contest the legality of any assessment or denial of refund by action in circuit court, did not preclude the mandamus action here because the interest claim was a separate matter.
The court emphasized that once the refund was achieved, the interest became “ripe, due, and owing” when the warrant issued thus the circuit court had jurisdiction to compel payment of interest via mandamus.
Entitlement to Interest: The statutory scheme:
- § 213.255 authorizes interest on overpayments, payments of tax where none was due, or tax paid in error provided the refund application is filed within the period set in § 215.26(1).
- The interest begins 90 days after receipt of the complete refund application, if the refund amount has not been paid or credited.
- Administrative rule 12-26.004(2)(b), F.A.C., further provides that if a refund isn’t paid or credited within 90 consecutive calendar days of receipt of the completed application, interest starts on the 91st day through the date the voucher for the refund warrant is submitted.
Here, SEI’s refund application was filed September 24, 2019; the Department never argued the application was incomplete. The Department issued the warrant for the refund but omitted interest. The court held that interest was required and that mandamus was the correct vehicle to obtain it.
Holding
The First DCA reversed the circuit court’s dismissal and remanded with directions to grant the writ of mandamus and determine the amount of interest owed to SEI in accordance with § 213.255 and rule 12-26.004(2)(b).
Key Take-Aways for Practitioners
- A taxpayer who obtains a refund for overpayment (or tax paid in error) under § 215.26(1) and timely files a complete refund application may be entitled to interest under § 213.255.
- Interest begins running if the refund is not paid or credited within 90 days (or starting on the 91st day per rule) from receipt of a complete application.
- If the refund is issued but interest is omitted, a taxpayer may seek a writ of mandamus in circuit court (if the interest claim is ripe) rather than being limited to administrative review under chapter 120.
- Important to monitor not just the principal refund but whether interest is also paid.
- This case reinforces the importance of timely and complete refund applications and the procedural path to enforce interest when it’s omitted.
The Department of Revenue is always quick to assess and collect interest when a taxpayer owes money, yet, as this case shows, the State often drags its feet when it comes time to pay interest back to taxpayers. The SEI Fuel decision is an important reminder that Florida law doesn’t just allow for refunds it also guarantees interest when the State holds onto your money too long. But that right depends on having a timely and complete refund application. Businesses should make sure their refund claims are properly documented from the start and, if interest isn’t paid, be ready to pursue it aggressively. After all, what’s fair for the government should be fair for the taxpayer too.
About the author: Gerald “Jerry” Donnini II is a Shareholder of the Law Offices of Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, PA. Mr. Donnini concentrates in the area of Florida and Federal tax matters, with a heavy emphasis on the tobacco, convenience store and petroleum industries . He also handles a myriad of multi-state state and local tax issues. Mr. Donnini is a co-author for CCH’s Expert Treatise Library: State Sales and Us Tax and writes extensively on multi-state tax issues for SalesTaxSupport.com. Mr. Donnini also regularly represents cigarette, beverage, and tobacco distributors against the Division of Alcohol and Tobacco in connection with refund claims and audit defense. While at Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center, Mr. Donnini was the Notes and Comments Editor of Nova Law Review and Vice President of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Prior to attending law school at Nova in 2008, Jerry was an accountant for National Retail Properties, Inc.
About the firm: At the Law Office of Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, PA, our primary practice area is Florida taxes, with a very heavy emphasis in Florida sales and use tax. We have defended Florida businesses against the Florida Department of Revenue since 1991 and have over 100 years of cumulative sales tax experience within our firm. Our partners are both CPAs/Accountants and Attorneys, so we understand both the accounting side of the situation as well as the legal side. We even have former sales tax auditors on staff. We represent taxpayers and business owners from the entire state of Florida. Contact us for a FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION to confidentially discuss how we can help put this nightmare behind you.
AUTHORITY
SEI Fuel Services Inc, v State of Florida, Department of Revenue, FL 1st DCA opinion 1D2024-2098 (Oct 22, 2025)
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
DOUBLE PAY FL MOTOR FUEL TAX? SEI FULE SERVICES WINS BIG!, published February 20, 2024, by Jerry Donnini, Esq.
EXHAUST YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES? FAILURE TO DO SO MAY PROVE FATAL, published May 8, 2025, by Jonathan Taylor, Esq.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES IN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEALS, published May 1, 2025, by Jonathan Taylor, Esq.