3 ms·

I think it makes some procedural sense. After all, the state was entitled at the time it took the money, and if the state insists, you'd have to sue them to re

I think it makes some procedural sense. After all, the state was entitled at the time it took the money, and if the state insists, you'd have to sue them to regain that money. It's the same with any other transaction where the assumptions in that transaction were found to have been (non-maliciously) incorrect. But from a... well, moral perspective (I hate to bring morality into a legal discussion but it is really where I draw my sense of these things), it's wrong because it provides a path for someone who has done no wrong to be harmed without providing a path for them to be restored.

pishpash 10y ago
It does not make even procedural sense. The state is not entitled (at least subject to full return) until the whole appeals process is finished. Consider the opposite case to see how the state deals with money, if the IRS accepts your tax return but later finds fault with it, can you just say sorry? No you pay everything plus interest. You'd pay a penalty too if it was willfully wrong. Likewise, if the state took the money maliciously, they should even pay a penalty. In no case should they be entitled to clear the ledger like they did.