Dell Sales Tax Class Action Settlement
If you or your business did not receive a Short Form Notice and Individual Summary, you may still be a member of the Settlement Class entitled to file a Claim for compensation. The Settlement Class consists of all persons and business entities:
- Who purchased from one or more of Respondents at least one Optional Maintenance Agreement;
- Whose “ship-to” address for such purchase was a location in the State of North Carolina;
- Who, from April 15, 1999 through December 31, 2008, paid any amount of money denominated as a “tax” calculated in whole or in part on the charge for the purchase of such Optional Maintenance Agreement;
- Who have not received a refund of such “tax” money in connection with a return of the Dell-branded hardware and who were not eligible to receive a refund of such “tax” money pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 105-161.14; and
- Whose purchase was governed by a contract containing a clause calling for arbitration administered by the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution.
Reimbursement of sales taxes paid plus interest
Proof of Purchase
Zack B. Starritt, et al. v. Dell Inc.,
before the CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution
In a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina (the “Superior Court”), styled Starritt, et al. v. Dell Computer Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 03 CVS 5099, the plaintiff, Zack B. Starritt (“Starritt”), for himself and all similarly situated persons who purchased and paid tax on Optional Maintenance Agreements sold by Dell, sued Dell Inc. (f/k/a Dell Computer Corporation), Dell Marketing Limited Partnership (“DMLP”), Dell Catalog Sales Limited Partnership (“DCSLP”), BancTec, Inc. (“BancTec”), and QualxServ LLC (“QualxServ”)(collectively, “Respondents”). The Superior Court found that Starritt’s claims were subject to binding arbitration and ordered Starritt to present his claims against Respondents to the CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, formerly known as the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution, in Raleigh, North Carolina. Starritt’s claims in arbitration are pending before a tribunal of three arbitrators (the “CPR Tribunal”).
Starritt alleged that Respondents engaged in unfair or deceptive business practices, in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 75-1.1, et seq. (“UDTPA”) and the North Carolina common law, in connection with the charge and collection of monies as North Carolina sales or use tax on purchases of Optional Maintenance Agreements, for which Starritt claimed no such tax was due. Respondents denied the allegations and claimed that they were adhering to North Carolina tax law. In response to Starritt’s lawsuit, Respondents also filed tax refund claims with DOR for the monies remitted to the State of North Carolina as sales or use tax on those Optional Maintenance Agreement purchases.