Arizona Tax Court Court Cases

  1. Cottonwood Affordable Housing v. Yavapai County (2003)

    Plaintiff, Cottonwood Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership ("Cottonwood") owns and operates a low-income housing project in Cottonwood, Arizona. This Arizona limited partnership was formed to construct and operate low income housing under the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit ("LIHTC") program. Cottonwood's limited partners bought LIHTCs under that program. In assessing Cottonwood's property, the Yavapai County Assessor assigned a full cash value to the property of $2,121,859 for the 2002 [...]

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 2001-000616
  2. Bohn v. Waddell (1990)

    On March 28, 1989, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989). The Davis decision held, as contrary to federal law, certain provisions of Michigan law governing state taxation of income. Michigan imposed a tax on the pension benefits of federal retirees, while exempting from tax similar benefits enjoyed by State of Michigan pensioners.

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 89-00050
  3. Rio Rico Properties v. Santa Cruz County (1992)

    Trial to the Court in Rio Rico Properties, Inc., v. Santa Cruz County concluded on September 18, 1991. As originally filed, the Taxpayer's cause of action was set forth in three counts, Count I seeking special action relief. Four additional cases were consolidated into Rio Rico so that, as trial approached, seven separate claims were to be resolved. Except for Count I of the captioned case, the history and resolution of all claims in the consolidated case were set forth in the Court's Minute [...]

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 90-00339, TX 90-00080
  4. Dept. of Revenue v. Cyprus Sierrita Corp. (1994)

    The issue in this case is whether three chemicals, sulfuric acid, LIX, and Orfom SX-7, used to produce cathode copper from copper ore, are "machinery" or "equipment." If they are, A.R.S. 42-1409(B)(1) exempts their cost from taxation.

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 92-00279
  5. Ryder Truck Rental v. City of Phoenix (1992)

    This is an action brought by Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., to recover privilege taxes it paid to the City of Phoenix on its rental income from leasing trucks. Former § 14-2(a)(8) of the Phoenix City Code imposed a privilege tax on income from leasing tangible personal property for a consideration. The City of Phoenix assessed Ryder privilege taxes based on this section for the time period of July 1983 through November 1986. Ryder claims it is exempted from this tax under the Phoenix City Code [...]

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 88-00749
  6. People of Faith v. Dept. of Revenue (1989)

    The Court has had under advisement the first motion for partial summary judgment filed by the plaintiff taxpayer and the cross-motion for summary judgment of the defendant, Arizona Department of Revenue.

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 89-00001
  7. PCS, INC. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue (1993)

    The Taxpayer, PCS, Inc. (PCS), brought this action against the Arizona Department of Revenue contesting use taxes imposed against it under A.R.S. § 42-1408. The issue presented is whether the processing of blank plastic cards into prescription plan identification cards is "use," "storage," or "consumption" in Arizona. A.R.S. §§ 421401, 1454.

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 93-00201
  8. Mervyn's v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue (1993)

    Taxpayers brought this action against the Arizona Department of Revenue contesting use taxes assessed against them pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-1408. The parties submitted this case to trial on stipulated facts. The issue to be decided is whether newspaper advertising supplements printed out-of-state and circulated within the state by Arizona newspapers are subject to Arizona's use tax. The Court finds that the supplements are taxable.

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 91-00057
  9. Ladewig v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue (2003)

    In 1991, taxpayer Helen H. Ladewig ("Ladewig") filed an administrative refund claim with the Arizona Department of Revenue ("ADOR"), claiming that its denial of analogous deductions for dividends received from corporations not doing more than half their business in Arizona, i.e. former A.R.S. § 43-1052 (1992) (current version at A.R.S. § 43-1128 (1998)) was unconstitutional as a violation of the Commerce Clause. This Court will not reiterate the entire factual history of this case which is [...]

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 1997-000075
  10. May Dept. Stores Co. v. Maricopa County (2003)

    The Court having taken the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment under advisement; having reviewed the memoranda of the parties and legal authorities cited therein; and good cause appearing,

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 2001-000630
  11. TITLE USA v. Maricopa County (1991)

    The two cases under consideration in this Opinion are property tax appeals brought pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-177. In both cases, the taxpayers challenge the taxing authority's refusal to classify the subject property as "used for agricultural purposes." Property "used for agricultural purposes" is valued for tax purposes by an income method defined in A.R.S. § 42-141(A)(5).[1] At the time these properties were valued for tax purposes, Arizona statutes did not provide a definition for "used for [...]

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 88-00289, TX 89-00963
  12. Hing v. Maricopa County (2010)

    The facts are quickly stated. Plaintiffs own real property in Maricopa County. It is not contested that the county assessor provided timely notice of valuation for tax year 2009 on or before March 1, 2008, and that taxes were levied on the property based on that valuation. Plaintiffs appealed the valuation to this Court on November 25, 2009.

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 2009-000536
  13. MARACAY THUNDERBIRD v. Maricopa County (2010)

    Following oral argument, the Court took defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction under advisement. Upon further consideration of the briefing and argument, the Court rules as follows.

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 2008-000808
  14. Rcj Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue, Maricopa Cty. (1991)

    This is a property tax appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-246 and A.R.S. § 42-177. This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss by Maricopa County. In its Complaint, the Taxpayer challenges the valuation of its property for the tax year 1990. 1990 property taxes were paid before they became delinquent. However, when suit was filed, second half property taxes for 1989 on the property had not been paid. The sole issue before the Court is whether the Taxpayer's failure to pay the prior [...]

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 90-01242
  15. Maricopa County v. TWC CHANDLER (2003)

    The Court having taken Defendant Arizona State Board of Equalization's (the "SBOE") Motion to Dismiss and Defendant TWC-Chandler, L.L.C.'s ("TWC") Motion to Dismiss under advisement; having reviewed the memoranda of the parties and the legal authorities cited therein; and good cause appearing, enters the following Opinion,

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 2003-000198
  16. Seafirst Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue (1992)

    This is a property tax appeal pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 42-246 and 42-177. A.R.S. § 42-246 authorizes an appeal directly to superior court by a property owner dissatisfied with the determination of valuation or classification of property by a county assessor. The statute requires that the appeal be taken "in the manner provided in § 42-177."

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 90-00871
  17. First Interstate Bank v. Dept. of Revenue (1994)

    First Interstate Bank of Arizona is licensed to do banking business in Arizona and it has over 40 branch offices in this state. For tax year 1992, the Pima County Assessor taxed all of the bank's personal property as unsecured property. The bank paid the tax but protested, claiming that the property should have been taxed as secured property and because it was not, the bank should get back all the taxes it paid. The Assessor (and the Arizona Department of Revenue) claims it made no mistake; [...]

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 93-00826
  18. Bohn v. Waddell (1991)

    On April 6, 1990, this Court, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-171, issued its Opinion on certain issues presented to the Court by the litigants. Among other things, the Court decided that "the scheme for taxing state and federal pensions, as existed before the recent amendment to A.R.S. § 43-1022, was in violation of federal law, and further, was in violation of the federal constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity." Bohn v. Waddell, 164 Ariz. 74, 80, 790 P.2d 772, 778 (Tax 1990). [...]

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 89-00050
  19. Read v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue (1991)

    Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) A.R.C.P., Maricopa County moved, on September 10, 1990, to dismiss the complaint's 1989 valuation and classification claims. Maricopa asserted that the valuation and classification appeal was not timely filed. A.R.S. § 42-246 sets November 1 of the tax year as the deadline for filing such appeals with the Tax Court. Maricopa argued that Read should have filed his complaint on or before November 1, 1989, in order for the Tax Court to acquire jurisdiction.

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 90-00234
  20. Suncor Development v. Maricopa County (1990)

    On February 21, 1990, the Court heard applications for default in 18 cases. The cause captioned above was the first presented of these 18 cases. In all of these cases, the taxpayer was making an application for a default judgment in a property tax appeal taken pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-177. There are many more property tax appeals pending for the tax year 1989 in which the circumstances are essentially the same as those presented herein.

    Court: Arizona Tax Court Docket: TX 89-00683

1 of 2 Page(s)

  1. 2