Since 2000, the City had been billing a second local improvement tax to the owner of a residence located on a street corner; the rules, however, provided that buildings on a corner should not be imposed two local improvement taxes even if both streets had been repaired.<\/p>\n
In August 2014, the City realizes its mistake. \u00a0It quickly informs the citizen by letter, and reimburses him for the last three years.<\/p>\n
The Service des finances<\/em> explains that the three year time limit provided for in the Civil Code<\/em> prevents the City from reimbursing beyond that period: \u00a0the Department has a legal opinion supporting this conclusion.<\/p>\n The citizen disagrees and wants a full refund. He asked for the OdM<\/strong>\u2019s assistance.<\/p>\n We conduct a long investigation and an in-depth legal research and analysis; we then intervene in favour of the citizen.<\/p>\n Referring to well established legal principles, the OdM<\/strong> submits the following arguments to the Service des finances<\/em>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The City later informs us that it will provide full reimbursement to the citizen going back to year 2000, with interests.\u00a0 This amounted to nearly $27,000.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Since 2000, the City had been billing a second local improvement tax to the owner of a residence located on a street corner; the rules, however, provided that buildings on a corner should not be imposed two local improvement taxes … Continue reading \n
\n
\n