Tax


ALL LINKS ON THIS PAGE ARE PDF FILES AND WILL REQUIRE ADOBE ACROBAT READER



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?

October 24, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 01-0010  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maricopa County v. Kinko's

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?

October 24, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 02-0004  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Energy Squared v. ADOR

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?

October 24, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TX 01-0016  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Navajo County v. Property Tax

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?

April 25, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0024  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Southern Pacific v. State

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?

April 4, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . TX 01-0011  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADOR v. Blue Line

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?

March 7, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 99-0012  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADOR v. Arizona Outdoor

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? 

December 24, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . TX 01-0005  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University v. ADOR

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?

August 28, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TX 00-0023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kerr v. ADOR

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?

July 12, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Krausz v. Maricopa County

When a for-profit landlord leases an office building to a governmental tenant, whose use of the building controls the property tax classification?

July 10, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0013 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . London v. Mohave

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?

May 29, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rangel v. ADOR

Is the Mexican income tax on Arizona residents working at maquiladoras a "net" income tax?

May 29, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citadel Care Center v. ADOR

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?

March 1, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . People's Choice v. City of Tucson

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?

February 8, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Circle K Stores v. Apache County

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"?

February 1, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Havasu Springs v. La Paz County

Is the interest in buildings held by the lessee under a Bureau of Land Management lease subject to ad valorem taxation?

January 4, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 00-0004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conference Resource Specialists v. DES

Is a company acting only as a payrolling entity entitled to succeed to the employment insurance tax rate of the employer?

November 2, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 99-0022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Walden Books v. ADOR

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?

July 27, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TX 98-0020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Park Central v. Maricopa

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?