TAX
ALL LINKS ON THIS PAGE ARE PDF FILES AND WILL REQUIRE ADOBE ACROBAT
READER
November 3, 2009 . . . . . . . . TX 07-0016 . . . . .
. . . . . . Arizona v. Central
Does Public Law 86-272 preclude the State from including an out-of-state
partnership's revenues in the numerator of the apportionment formula of an
Arizona
consolidated return?
October 6, 2009 . . . . . . . . . .TX 07-0011 . . . .
. . . . . . . MDC Holdings v. ADOR
1. Under Arizona's Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act should
the
denominator of the sales factor of the corporate income tax apportionment
formula
include only the net gains from the sales of mortgages and mortgage servicing
rights?
2. Should the numerator of the sales factor include gains on sales when
all costs
of performance relating to the sales are incurred outside Arizona?
September 15, 2009 . . . . . . .TX 08-0009 . . . . . .
. . . . . Premiere RV v. Maricopa
A "split" of a parcel of land triggers a valuation of the property according to
its market
value. Does a "split" occur when a private transaction results in the
transfer of
ownership of a portion of a taxable parcel or when the assessor completes the
process
of identifying and valuing the resulting parcels?
May 26, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . .TX 08-0002 . . . .
. . . . . . .Watts v. ADOR
Did the Arizona Tax Court err in granting summary judgment to ADOR in
a case where taxpayers sought pollution control income tax credits pursuant
to Arizona Revised Statutes sections 43-1170 or 43-1081 for the cost of
water trucks and water wagons that were leased to others?
April 16, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . TX 07-0012
. . . . . . . . . . .Calpine v. ADOR
Is a power plant operator subject to state property tax for certain improvements
and personal property located on an Indian reservation?
March 31, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . TX 08-0003 . . . .
. . . . . . .Staples v. Concord
Does the roll-over provision in Arizona Revised Statutes section 42-16002(B)
(2004)
apply to property values obtained on appeal pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statutes,
Articles 2, 3, and 4 in chapter 16?
December 16, 2008 . . . . . . . TX 06-0017 . . .
. . . . . . . .Enterprise Leasing v. ADOR
Whether the retroactive amendment of Arizona Revised Statutes section 42-1170
(2000)
violated either the due process clause or the separation of powers.
September 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . TX 07-0003 . . . . .
. . . . . .Excell Agent Services v. ADOR
Does a company that only provides directory assistance qualify for tax
exemptions given
to businesses that provide telecommunications services?
July 15, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .TX 07-0009 . .
. . . . . . . . .Duke Energy v. ADOR
Are the tables described in Arizona Revised Statutes section 42-14156(A)(3)
rules that
are subject to Arizona's Administrative Procedure Act?
May 20, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 07-0007 . . .
. . . . . . . Tucson Botanical v. Pima County
Is a qualified non-profit
charitable botanical garden entitled to the tax exemption allowed
under A.R.S. § 42-11116 on that portion of its property it operates as a gift
shop, uses
to exhibit art for sale and rents to third-parties for various activities, such
as weddings and
private meetings or parties?
January 29, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . TX 07-0002 . . .
. . . . . . . Southwest Airlines Co. v. ADOR
Under Arizona law, may software be taxed as personal property?
Is the value of avionics software installed on airplane flight computers to be
valued along
with the airplane for property tax purposes?
October 25, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . TX 06-0002 . . .
. . . . . . . Eurofresh v. Graham County
Whether a taxpayer seeking a reduction in full cash value for ad valorem
tax purposes due
to purported external obsolescence must offer proof of the cause of the asserted
obsolescence
and proof that it affected the value of the subject property.
September 13, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . TX 06-0005 . .
. . . . . . . . . . ADOR v. Ormond Builders
1. Is a construction manager a prime contractor for purposes of the transaction
privilege tax?
2. Does the taxable gross income of a prime contractor include amounts received
to
pay trade contractors who have contracts directly with the project owners?
July 26, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 06-0018
. . . . . . . . . . . Sun City v. Maricopa County
Do the
statutes applicable to eligibility for common area property tax valuation
require that
public use of such area be completely prohibited?
July 19, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 06-0015
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADOR v. Questar
1. Prior to 2006, could the full cash value of a property for tax
purposes, as calculated by a
mandatory statutory method, exceed the alleged market value of the property?
2.
Under A.R.S. § 42-16214, must a taxpayer pay interest on an underpayment of
taxes
from the date of underpayment if the Department of Revenue successfully appeals
the value
set by the Board of Equalization?
June 5, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TX 06-0006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADOR v. Action Marine
Does A.R.S. § 42-5028 impose personal
liability for unpaid corporate transaction privilege taxes upon
corporate officers or directors whose duties include remitting such taxes to
ADOR?
May 24, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 06-0010 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karbal v. ADOR
Whether the
plaintiff has standing to challenge the transactional tax which supports the
Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority?
February 15, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . TX 05-0007 .
. . . . Copper Hills v. ADOR
Must a transaction privilege tax
collected by a city from a business located in an annexed
area be refunded when the subject annexation is found to be void?
May 9, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX
05-0005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freelance v. ADES
Does Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 6 (e),
adding five days to a time computation for mailing, apply to A.R.S. § 23-724(A),
which sets the process for an administrative appeal of an Arizona Department of
Economic Security determination?
March 30, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 04-0006 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stearns v. ADOR
Does the phrase “the taxpayer’s entire income upon which the tax is imposed” in
A.R.S. § 43-1071(A)(3), which sets forth the formula for the calculation of a
resident taxpayer’s credit for taxes paid to other states, refer to Arizona
adjusted gross income plus deductions or to Arizona taxable income?
January 19, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX
04-0016/TX 04-0021 (consol.) ADR v. Salt River
Are contributions in aid of construction ("CIAC") included in an electric
utility company's original
plant in service cost for valuation and taxation purposes?
May 3, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX
04-0012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daimlerchrysler v. ADOR
Is a bad debt deduction under Arizona Administrative Code R15-5-2011 limited to
the vendor of the goods to which the debt applies?
April 5, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TX 03-0017 . . . . . . . . . . . . Qwest v. ADOR
Does the Arizona use tax apply to the out-of-state purchase of telephone
directories where the Arizona taxpayer provided the information and paper for
the directories and the out-of-state printer merely provided a service in
printing and binding the directories?
March 18, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TX 04-0007 . . . . . . . . . . . . Griffith Energy v. ADOR
1. What standard of review should the tax court employ in assessing whether ADOR
erred in adopting a valuation table pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-14156(A)?
2. Does A.R.S. § 42-14156(A)(3), as interpreted by the tax court, violate the
constitutional prohibition against delegating lawmaking authority to an
administrative agency?
February 24, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX
03-0015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . SFPP v. ADOR
For property tax valuation purposes, does “original cost” in A.R.S. § 42-14204
mean the original cost of placing the pipeline assets in service or the
acquisition cost to the current owner?
February 08, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX
02-0027 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4501 Northpoint v. Maricopa
1. Is a Rule 68 judgment an adjudication on the merits?
2. Does Rule 68(c)(3) control a taxpayer's right to attorneys'
fees?
3. Is a Rule 68 judgment an adjudication on the merits for
purposes of A.R.S. § 12-348(B)(1)?
February 3, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TX 03-0006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker v. ADOR
Did the alternative fuel statutes enacted in December 2000 violated the
contracts clauses of either the United States or Arizona Constitution or,
alternatively, deprive plaintiffs of due process?
January 27, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TX 04-0004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lyons v. Board of Equalization
Did the tax court correctly rule that the provisions of A.R.S. §§ 42-16251
through -16258 do not authorize the Board of Equalization to decide whether a
county assessor properly rejected a taxpayer's request for a real property tax
exemption?
September 23, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX
03-0009 . . . . . . . . . . . Walgreen v. ADOR
Is the return of principal from short-term investments includable in a
corporation's "total sales" pursuant to Arizona's version of the Uniform
Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act?
June 17, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TX 03-0008 . . . . . . . . . . . . Pinal Vista v. Turnball
Does the transfer of real property to the State by issuance of a treasurer's tax
deed extinguish any privately-held tax liens?
April 29, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX
02-0021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nordstrom v. Maricopa
Is the Nordstrom Store at Scottsdale Fashion Square a "shopping
center" within the meaning of
A.R.S. § 42-13201 for property tax valuation purposes?
December 11, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . TX
03-0002 . . . . . . . . . . . . Kocher v. ADOR
Were taxpayers residents of Arizona for the subject tax year and thus not
entitled to deduct $5.6 million in stock option income from their Arizona income
tax return?
September 4, 2003..........................TX
02-0006....................................University v. Pima County
Is a corporation that operates a variety of medical clinics an
"institution for the relief of the afflicted"
as a matter of law?
August 26, 2003..............................TX
02-0017.................................................Citizens v. ADOR
1. Do taxpayers lack standing to assert counterclaims against ADOR and 15
Arizona counties when
the taxes that underlie the taxpayers' discrimination claims have not yet been
levied?
2. Does the tax court lack jurisdiction of cases in which the
taxpayers failed to name all applicable
counties as parties or does the omission merely bar the taxpayer from seeking a
refund from such
unnamed county?
3. Was Qwest properly granted summary judgment on its allegation that
ADOR's failure to apply
the functional equivalency test from In re America West Airlines to value
Qwest's class 3 property
violated the Uniformity Clause?
4. Did the tax court err in failing to apply the functional equivalency
test to the other taxpayers?
August 14, 2003...............................TX
02-0018...................................................Luther v. ADOR
Did the tax court err by ruling as a matter of law that ADOR was not equitably
estopped from
assessing delinquent tax, interest and penalties against a taxpayer?
July 22, 2003..................................TX
02-0020.................................................Interlott v. ADOR
This opinion establishes what constitutes a failure to protest a tax
assessment, and that a failure to
protest a tax assessment and the resulting finality of the assessment presents a
question of jurisdiction.
It also discusses the indicia of what constitutes a sufficient nexus between a
corporation and the
State to subject the corporation to the State's transaction-privilege tax.
May 15, 2003.................................TX 01-0007
................................................ADOR v. Capitol
As an issue of first impression and interest to the mining and manufacturing
industries, whether materials
used to make molds qualify as "machinery" or "equipment,"
are exempt from use taxation pursuant to
A.R.S. § 42-5159(B) (1)?
March 27, 2003 ............................ TX
01-0004 .................................................... ADOR v. Raby
In computing Arizona adjusted gross income pursuant to A.R.S. § 43-1022, may
a husband and wife who file a joint Arizona income tax return each claim the
subtraction authorized by § 43-1022(b)(2) for benefits "received"
from the state retirement system when those benefits are paid as the result of
one spouse's retirement?
February 25, 2003..........................TX
02-0010...............................Arizona Joint Venture v. ADOR
1. Whether ADOR lacked statutory authority to adjust the taxpayers'
land-value deductions;
2. Whether ADOR's land-value deduction adjustments constituted invalid
deficiency assessments
because they were made without using the proper ADOR form and were barred by the
statutory
limitations period established by Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.")
sections 42-1104(A) (1999 &
Supp. 2002) and 42-1108 (A) (1999);
3. Whether ADOR's prior conduct estopped it from reducing the
taxpayers' land-value deductions
or to require the taxpayers to substantiate them; and
4. Whether the tax court should have required ADOR to prove that the
taxpayers' land-value
deductions were overstated.
December 26, 2002........................TX
01-0013...............................U-Stor Bell v. Maricopa County
Do on-site "manager's apartments" located in commercial self-storage facilities meet the statutory requirements for classification as leased residential property?
1. Does Article 9, Section 2 (6) of the Arizona Constitution and its definition of "taxpayer" restrict the power of the legislature to extend an ad valorem property tax exemption to each "assessment account" or property location owned by a taxpayer?
2. Is A.R.S. § 42-11127 unconstitutional?
3. Is A.R.S. § 42-280 automatically revived to fill the void created by § 42-11127's unconstitutionality?
Does the taxpayer's, Energy Squared's, use of its tanning beds and booths in generating gross income constitute the taxable business of leasing or renting tangible personal property for a consideration?
May Navajo County exclude from its ad valorem property tax levy limitation a payment made to settle lawsuits seeking reimbursement of expenditures for health care services provided to indigent residents of Navajo County?
1. Does Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution (the Commerce Clause) require apportionment of state and local business privilege taxes on gross receipts from transportation services between points in Arizona when approximately 20% of the route is located in a neighboring state?
2. Does Arizona law authorize apportionment of such taxes?
Does an industrial dough machine used in a pizzeria constitute equipment used in a manufacturing or processing operation and thereby qualify for a tax exemption for sales of such equipment?
Using a reasonable person test for fixtures, rather than the test formulated in Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 (1853), did appellee's billboards, when erected on the land of another pursuant to lease, become fixtures or did they remain personalty?
Does A.R.S. § 15-1637(D), which grants a property tax exemption to certain nonprofit health care institutions, apply to all property owned by those institutions or only to property those institutions lease from the State?
1. Whether Arizona's income taxing scheme violates 4 U.S.C. § 111 by taxing federal employees' mandatory contributions to retirement plans, but not those of state employees?
2. Whether the superior court erred or abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification?
3. Whether equal protection principles preclude ADOR from demanding compliance with an administrative claim requirement for taxpayers who initially paid the challenged taxes, while at the same time declining to pursue tax enforcement against other taxpayers who subtracted their mandatory federal retirement contributions on their Arizona returns and hence did not pay the challenged taxes?
When a for-profit landlord leases an office building to a governmental tenant, whose use of the building controls the property tax classification?
May a county assessor consider estimated market values of time-share interests associated with condominium units in valuing and assessing such units for property tax purposes?
Is the Mexican income tax on Arizona residents working at maquiladoras a "net" income tax?
1. Does leasing real property for use as a licensed nursing care facility at which nursing care patients indefinitely reside constitute business activity within the commercial lease classification as defined by A.R.S. section 42-5069?
2. Are lessors' leasing activities excluded by A.R.S. section 42-5069(C)(10) from the commercial lease classification if the ultimate occupants of the properties use the premises for residential purposes?
May 17, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0016 thru TX 00-0019 . . . . . . . . . . ADOR v. Canyoneers
Can the Arizona Department of Revenue refuse to refund, or place a condition on payment of refunds, sums collected for transaction privilege taxes on an activity that later was found not taxable?
Does the phrase "interstate telecommunications services" in A.R.S. section 42-6004(A)(2) comprehend the activities of cable or microwave television systems such that the City of Tucson is prohibited from taxing those businesses?
1. Does the term "taxpayer" in Article 9, Section 2(6) of the Arizona Constitution and former A.R.S. section 42-280 refer to the owner of taxable personal property, an "assessment account," or "property location"?
Is the interest in buildings held by the lessee under a Bureau of Land Management lease subject to ad valorem taxation?
Is a company acting only as a payrolling entity entitled to succeed to the employment insurance tax rate of the employer?
1. Does the Holmes & Narver test for transaction privilege tax exemption apply to the retail classification?
2. Can an unpublished out-of-state decision be cited as authority in an Arizona appellate brief?
October 24, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 99-0021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .US West v. Tucson
Is a Tucson tax on telecommunication services that use any Tucson rights-of-way a transaction privilege tax, and, if so, is it an invalid double tax?
When a county attempts to correct an assessment error for the current tax year by Notice of Error pursuant to A.R.S. section 42-16252, may the county do so before, or must it wait until after, the third Monday in August of that year?
July 25, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 98-0003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADOR v. Care
Did an out-of-state seller have sufficient nexus with Arizona to permit Arizona to impose retail transaction privilege taxes?