On January 19, 2023, the Honorable Jason Sengheiser of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis ruled in favor of six individual taxpayers entitling them to refunds of their earnings taxes withheld for days they worked outside the City for tax years 2020 and beyond (Boles, et al, v. City of St. Louis , et al., 2122-CC00713). Judge Sengheiser’s order states that the earnings tax Ordinance means what it says, that is, that the phrase “work performed or services rendered in the City” applies only to those who are actually present in the City.

Here is a link to the full opinion: DOWNLOAD THE COURT ORDER

As of now, this decision only entitles the six individual taxpayers named in the order to their refunds for tax years 2020 and beyond. We have been in contact with the attorney for the Collector to try and ascertain how he and the City intend to proceed. It is our hope that in light of Judge Sengheiser’s well-reasoned decision, the Collector and the City will agree to issue refunds to all nonresidents who have submitted requests for days they worked outside the City for tax years 2020 and 2021. We are also mindful that the Collector’s change in refund form may have made it more difficult for the public to submit refund claims, which is why we previously posted our own suggested “protest/refund” form to this website. We have since added protest/refund forms for tax years 2021 and 2022 (see instructions for submitting your forms at the bottom of this page in our earlier post).

As has been widely reported, we previously sought class action status in this case back in 2021 when we first filed this case, but an earlier judge dismissed those counts, leaving us with only the individual plaintiffs’ claims for refunds and our Hancock violation claim (discussed below). We are still deliberating on whether to appeal the denial of class action status and the Hancock ruling. Much of this will depend on how the Collector and the City decide to respond to Judge Sengheiser’s ruling.

Please understand that at this time we are not looking to “add any additional individual plaintiffs” to this case, nor can we provide any specific advice and/or representation to any other individual taxpayers. As you can imagine, we have received countless calls, emails, and/or messages from affected taxpayers since the beginning of this lawsuit, and even more since Judge Sengheiser’s ruling. But it is simply not feasible for us to respond to every inquiry and/or to set up separate engagements and file separate claims/lawsuits for all those affected (potentially tens of thousands of people). We will, however, continue to post updates to this website that we find beneficial to the public.

You should consult with your own tax attorney and/or advisor regarding your eligibility for any earnings tax refunds and how best for you to proceed. You certainly may file your own separate lawsuit seeking your refund if the Collector refuses to pay it. It is our belief that for tax year 2021, refund claims may still be pursued and are due by April 18, 2023, and for tax year 2022, refund claims are due by April 18, 2024. For tax year 2020, it is less clear. Anyone who submitted a refund claim for tax year 2020 prior to July 2022 should be entitled to a refund (one year from the date the original 2020 return was due per City Ordinance). We would also argue that the Collector’s unlawful changing of the pre-2020 refund form should allow all those people whose refunds were thwarted by the use of that form an extended time to seek their refunds. That was largely the crux of our class action claims. This was not just about tax refunds. From the beginning, this was a case about government overreach and the deprivation of constitutional rights. Our argument was that the Collector and the City knew all along they were wrong about the law and did what they did anyway due to the “fear [of] a high demand for the Earnings Tax refund[s] and “its potentially profound effect on the City’s budget,” as Judge Sengheiser put it. 

Early on in our litigation, we asked the Court to order the Collector to change the altered refund form that the Collector promulgated for tax year 2020, which we maintained unlawfully stated that refunds were limited to only travel days. The earlier judge ruled against us. As such, we posted a refund/protest form to our website, which we recommended affected nonresidents use for tax year 2020.

Given the Court’s recent decision in our favor, we have asked the Collector to return the refund form (the E-1R) to the pre-2020 tax year form, which only requires nonresidents to state how many days they worked outside the City (without discriminating between remote work and travel days). If the Collector does not change the form, we may ask the Court to intervene and order the Collector to do so. 

We hope you found this update helpful. We will continue to do our best to keep the public informed regarding the status of this case by posting further updates here.

Yours Truly,

W. Bevis Schock & Mark Milton

We are Bevis Schock and Mark Milton, attorneys at law. We have filed a class action lawsuit in the City of St. Louis (Boles v. City of St. Louis, 2122-CC00713) to try to get non-city residents their earnings tax refunds for teleworking days. The purpose of this website is to create a roadmap for people to file the necessary papers to seek their refunds for teleworking days. There are some tricky legal issues involved, but this roadmap lays out what we think this is the best approach under the circumstances. We offer no guarantees.

One thing is for sure: If you don’t submit forms protesting and demanding a refund, you won’t get a refund.

As authorized by state and local laws, the City of St. Louis collects a 1% earnings tax on nonresidents for “work performed” or “services rendered” in the City.

Employers based in or with offices located in the City are required to withhold this 1% tax from their employees’ pay throughout the year.

Before the pandemic, if a nonresident (that is, someone who lives in St. Louis County, the Metro East, or St. Charles County, or anywhere else outside the City of St. Louis) worked some of days of the year outside the City, whether the employee was (1) teleworking from home, or (2) traveling for a business purpose, such as a member of the Cardinals going to New York to play the Mets, the employee could apply for a refund for an amount based on the proportion of days worked outside the City. The City would pay the refunds, generally without squabble.

(People who live in the City owe the earnings tax regardless of where they work. If you live in the City, this case does not relate to you).

Now, for tax year 2020, the City has changed its policy and its forms to only allow refund claims for days spent “traveling” for a business purpose, and to not allow refunds for days spent teleworking or otherwise working from locations outside the City.

The City presumably will still issue refunds for “travel days” and those may be sought using the 2020 Form E-1R and Form E-1RV, available on the Collector’s website.

We are suing both the City of St. Louis and the City’s elected tax Collector of Revenue, Gregory F.X. Daly. We believe the Collector and City’s conduct violates the unambiguous language of the state statute, the City’s earnings tax ordinance, and the “Hancock Amendment” to the Missouri Constitution, which prevents the City from increasing the tax base, such as by taxing income that had previously been not taxed, without a vote of the people.

One bit of good news in the case is that under long-established precedent, any ambiguity which might happen to exist in the state statute and/or the City’s tax ordinance must be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer!

One piece of bad news in the case is that the City and The Collector take the position that under Missouri law each person must file a separate individual lawsuit and that class actions are not allowed. That, of course, would be unworkable in this situation where there are tens of thousands of claimants and most are seeking less that $1,000.00. We thus seek to make the case a class action. Such are the vagaries of “FIGHTING CITY HALL.” (If you want to file your own suit you may do so, of course).

In a recent court hearing the Collector’s lawyer told the judge that he believes taxpayers have to submit a PROTEST, but that submission of a demand for the disputed days would be such a protest.

We have decided to try to turn this statement to the taxpayers’ advantage, and thus have everyone who is entitled to a refund for teleworking days submit a PROTEST.

The instructions on the City’s current forms state those forms are only to be used to seek refunds for days spent traveling on business. As such, we have created a separate PROTEST form to seek a refund for your teleworking days (days worked outside the City of St. Louis, not including travel days).

On the PROTEST form, your employer will have to certify the number of days you teleworked from locations outside the City, not including travel days.

If you have already submitted a refund claim using the Collector’s current forms including travel and teleworking days, you should consider submitting the Protest Form specifying the number of days you spent teleworking from a location outside the City.

LIST OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. CLICK below to download the PROTEST form.

2. Fill out both pages of the form, including the employer certification on page two. The computer will self populate several of the lines.

3. PRINT the completed PROTEST form.

4. Sign the first page yourself, and have your employer sign the second page.

5. Submit all completed forms to the Collector of Revenue by one of the following methods:

Email:    earningstaxcor@stlouis-mo.gov

Regular Mail:
Collector Gregory F.X. Daly
City Hall
1200 Market St. Room 410
St. Louis MO 63103

Fax:    314-622-4847

6. Keep a complete signed copy of what you submit.

Due to the potential volume of people seeking refunds and using this website, we will not respond to requests for any additional guidance or questions regarding how to pursue your refund claims. At this time, our formal representation is limited to the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit. Please consult your own legal and/or tax advisor with any questions.

Bevis Schock

Attorney At Law

Mark Milton

Attorney At Law