Columbus, OH – On Wednesday, The Buckeye Institute filed its notice of appeal in Wos v. Cleveland—a class action lawsuit on behalf of 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. Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals will hear the appeal.

“The Buckeye Institute has called 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,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute and an attorney representing Ms. Wos and Mr. Steffes.

The Buckeye Institute will file a full brief with Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals at a later date to be set by the court. To stay up-to-date on the case, visit BuckeyeInstitute.org/WosvCleveland. 

Background on the Case and The Buckeye Institute’s Clients
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 of Strongsville 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, of North Royalton, 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.

# # #