Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Public Parking Authority of Pittsburgh, a municipal corporation, Associated Dry Goods Corporation, a Virginia corporation, successor to Joseph Horne Co., a Pennsylvania corporation, Gimbel Brothers, Inc., a New York corporation, The May Department Stores Company, a New York corporation, and Parking Service Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiffs v. City of Pittsburgh, a municipal corporation, Defendant, No. 687 July Term, 1972.
Grace S. Harris, Executive Assistant City Solicitor, with her Mead J. Mulvihill, Jr., City Solicitor, for appellant.
David McNeil Olds, with him Joseph F. McDonough, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellee, May Department Stores Company.
David L. Feigenbaum, with him John G. Frazer, Jr., and Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchison, for Associated Dry Goods Corporation.
Joan P. Feldman, with her Richard H. Martin, and Baskin, Boreman, Wilner, Sachs, Gondelman & Craig, for Parking Service Corporation.
Louis Caplan, with him David S. Watson, and Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, for appellee, Gimbel Brothers, Inc.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 28 Pa. Commw. Page 331]
The City of Pittsburgh (City) has appealed an order of the Court of Common Pleas directing it to pay interest from the date of payment on monies which were paid pursuant to a subsequently invalidated local tax ordinance. Appellees*fn1 are operators of public parking facilities located within the City who paid, under protest, a 20 percent business privilege tax upon their gross receipts. The payments were made during 1970, 1971 and 1972. The ordinance was then declared invalid by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County*fn2 and we affirmed.*fn3 Further
[ 28 Pa. Commw. Page 332]
review was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court. Demand for refund of taxes has been made.
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the court below was correct in concluding that interest on the tax refunds should be calculated from the date the taxes were paid.
Interest payable on refunds of the tax here involved depends upon the date the City erred in retaining the tax payments. In Cities Service Oil Co. v. Pittsburgh, 449 Pa. 481, 297 A.2d 466 (1972), our Supreme Court drew a distinction between cases where the amount of the refund rather than the tax itself is in issue and cases where the ...