Columbus, OH – On Wednesday, The Buckeye Institute filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Kate Wos of Strongsville, David Steffes of North Royalton, and all nonresidents of Cleveland who filed a municipal income tax return with the city and received their refund more than 90 days after filing their return. 

Wos v. Cleveland, filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, calls on the court to order the city of Cleveland to follow its own city ordinances and pay Ms. Wos, Mr. Steffes, and anyone else affected the interest Cleveland owes them because the city failed to issue their tax refund within 90 days. 

“Citizens should not be forced to go to court to get the city to follow its own laws,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute. “Cleveland city ordinances are clear: refunds not issued within 90 days are subject to interest. Cleveland officials know this, and the city owes The Buckeye Institute’s clients—and countless other taxpayers—for delayed tax refunds.”

Cleveland’s city ordinances state that when the city owes a tax refund, the refund is subject to interest at a rate of the federal funds rate of nearly five percent plus an additional five percent if the refund is not paid within 90 days after the taxpayer files their return.

On March 12, 2023—after the passage of Ohio House Bill 110, which allowed Ohioans to seek municipal income tax refunds for 2021 and 2022—Kate Wos filed her 2021 municipal tax return with Cleveland. As with countless other taxpayers, Ms. Wos then waited and waited and waited. After a more than six-month delay, Ms. Wos finally received her refund on September 21, 2023. However, the refund did not include the interest for the delay and failed to refund her for her paid vacation days.

Similarly, Mr. Steffes filed his municipal tax return with Cleveland for 2021, seeking a refund for the time during the pandemic that his employer, Stantec, closed its Cleveland office and ordered all employees to work from home. Initially, the city declined to issue Mr. Steffes’ refund, and their obstruction became so ridiculous as to demand that Mr. Steffes provide some form of verified statement from someone who was actually working in his employer’s Cleveland office in 2021 to confirm that Mr. Steffes was not working out of the Cleveland office. Such verification was, of course, impossible since no one was working out of Stantec’s Cleveland office. Finally, in late 2023, Mr. Steffes received his refund, but as with Ms. Wos, the refund did not include the interest for the delay and failed to refund Mr. Steffes for his paid vacation days. 

# # #