Guam News - Guam News

Guam -  The plaintiffs in the Class Action lawsuit against GovGuam over the late payments of tax refunds, has proposed to the District Court a permanent injunction that would require payment of refunds within 6 months after the claim has been filed.

Following her decision last month to order timely payments of tax refunds, Federal Judge Consuelo Marshall asked both sides to submit their proposals for a permanent injunction by today, Friday September 21, before she issues an order setting time-lines 

GovGuam asked for an extension and did not file a proposed order by the Friday deadline.

However, Plaintiffs Attorney,  Ike Aguigui, submitted an order which, among other things, recommends:

READ the plaintiff's proposed Permanent Injunction HERE  

* The Government of Guam shall, beginning one month from the entry of this Order, process and pay all GTIT refunds no later than six months after the filing of the corresponding claim for refund, irrespective of whether the claims for refunds were submitted before or after the issuance of this Order.

* The Government of Guam and Defendants Calvo, Mangloña, and Camacho shall immediately suspend and discontinue the practice of expediting GTIT refunds, i.e., prioritizing the payment of refunds to some taxpayers based on hardship, need, or any other reason.  

* If the Government of Guam fails to pay any refund on time, the Government shall make interest payments to each taxpayer to whom such a refund is owed 

* The Department of Revenue and Taxation shall prioritize the processing of claims for GTIT refunds and the payment of GTIT refunds according to the filing date of the claim for refunds. 

READ GovGuam's request for an extension HERE  

In GovGuam's request for an extension, Assistant AG Ken Orcutt writes that "defendants believe the main impediment to developing a plan has been the insufficient cash available to meet all current year expenditures, unpaid prior year obligations and unpaid tax refunds." 

Orcutt also points out that:

* Projected revenues for Fiscal Year 2013 are earmarked for specific expenditures and do not include payments for the remaining Tax Year 2011refunds.

* Fiscal Year 2013 budget includes a provision for tax refunds, but this is set aside is for the Tax Year 2013 refunds.

* Nothing has been set aside to pay for Tax Year 2012 tax refunds

* Moreover, there are "non-tax refund" related obligations that have to be paid and these obligations were also not addressed in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget.