STOP THE TAX-REFUND WRANGLING

The seemingly endless legal wrangling over the meaning of "total state revenues" in the Hancock Amendment continue. In the latest round, State Auditor Margaret Kelly is the winner of one preliminary skirmish in her determined effort to broaden this definition and thus force larger refunds to taxpayers. A state appeals court sided with Kelly this past week, saying she does indeed have legal standing to challenge the definition. Earlier, a Cole County circuit judge had ruled that as auditor she didn't have the requisite legal standing to bring the suit. Attorney General Jay Nixon has vowed to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, further delaying final determination of the merits of the lawsuit. The underlying issues in Kelly's suit can't be argued until the arcane legal dispute over standing is resolved.

At issue in the underlying lawsuit is how much will be refunded to taxpayers under the tax limitation amendment. Carnahan places the refund amount at $147 million. Kelly disputes this, saying more like $600 million is owed to taxpayers. The planned refund is because of the gusher of dollars crashing through the Missouri Constitution's lid on revenue. The difference is the legal definition of "total state revenues" that is contained in the amendment.

Kelly has asked Nixon not to appeal the appeals court ruling, arguing it would be an "unnecessary waste of taxpayer money." We agree. Nixon should drop his appeal of this over-litigated procedural issue, so that the courts can get down to the merits.