UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS TAX CASES

 

For various reasons, many tax cases are not issued for publication by the Court of Appeals.  Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, such cases have precedential authority and may be cited in only very limited circumstances.

 

Tony M. Coury Buick v. City of Mesa, 1 CA-TX 03-0014 (Ct. App. 2004)

El Paso Natural Gas v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 03-0016 (Ct. App. 2004)

Kamman v. Ladewig, 1 CA-TX 03-0003 (Consol.) (Ct. App. 2004)

Ariz. Dep't of Rev. v. QWest, 1 CA-TX 03-0010 (Ct. App. 2003)

R.C.W. Real Estate v. Pima County Stadium District et al, 1 CA-TX 99-0017 (Ct. App. 2001)

Indian Trails Mini Storage et al v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-TX 02-0023 (Consol.) (Ct. App. 2003)

HHC/PTC, LLC v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-TX 02-0022 (Ct. App. 2003)

Kingman Property v. Mohave County, 1 CA-TX 02-0016 (Ct. App. 2003)

SWTV Production Services v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 02-0012 (Ct. App. 2003)

Schwartz v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 02-0011 (Ct. App. 2003)

Arizona Joint Venture v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 02-0010 (Ct. App. 2002)

Luther Construction v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 02-0009 (Ct. App. 2003)

Home Depot USA v. Pima County, 1 CA-TX 02-0007 (Consol.) (Ct. App. 2003)

Aileen H. Char, et al v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-TX 02-0003 (Ct. App. 2003)

QWest v. City of Tucson, 1 CA-TX 02-0002 (Ct. App. 2002)

Southwest Gas v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 02-0001 (Ct. App. 2003)

Towne Development v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 01-0015 (Ct. App. 2002)

Madsen v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 01-0012 (Ct. App. 2002)

Hernandez v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 01-0009 (Ct. App. 2002)

U. S. West v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 01-0008 (Ct. App. 2002)

U. S. West v. City of Tucson, 1 CA-TX 01-0006 (Ct. App. 2002)

Arcon Construction Co. v. City Of Phoenix, 1 CA-TX 01-0003 (Ct. App. 0003)

Southwestern Dakotah v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 01-0002 (Ct. App. 2001)

Discount Mobile Homes v. City of Glendale, 1 CA-TX 00-0005 (Ct. App. 2001)

McLane v. State of Arizona, 1 CA-TX 00-0021 (Ct. App. 2001)

Sanifill of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County Assessor, 1 CA-TX 01-0001 (Ct. App. 2002)

Ormsbee Drillling Co. v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 00-0007 (Ct. App. 2000)

Mercedes-Benz Credit Corporation dba Financial Services, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 99-0018 (Ct. App. 2000)

The taxpayers leased helicopters to Omniflight, an emergency medical transport company. As a small carrier, it was exempt from the federal requirement to obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Civil Aeronautics Board. The taxpayers argued that Omniflight was, while exempt, still subject to the certificate federal requirement, which qualified it to the exemption from sales for leasing to airlines holding federal certificates. They argued that the tax exemption covered all airlines that were encompassed under the federal rules. The Court disagreed, holding that the exemption was specific, holding that it only applied to airlines holding the certificate. The Court also held that there was no equal protection violation when the exemption effectively only exempted large airlines.

General Motors Corporation v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 99-0011 (Ct. App. 2000)

GM argued that its earlier appeal against the Department was still open because there was still a dispute over the amount of tax that GM owed the Department.   As a result, it filed a motion under Rule 60 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure for a new trial, contending that the earlier proceeding should now be governed by the new equitable estoppel authority as interpreted by the Arizona Supreme Court in Valencia v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 191 Ariz. 565, 959 P.2d 1256 (1998).  The Court held for the Department, ruling that Rule 60 was rarely available for relief when there were changes in case law and that GM's dispute over the amount of tax that it owed was unrelated to the issues raised in the earlier appeal. 

Yarbrough v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 99-0007 (Ct. App. 2000)

State of Arizona v. Brannan Sand & Gravel, 1 CA-TX 98-0010 (Ct. App. 1999)

State of Arizona v. William Wentworth et al., 1 CA-TX 96-0005 (Ct. App. 1997)

F. W. Woolworth, Kinney Shoe Corp., et al v. State of Arizona, 1 CA-TX 97-0007 (Ct. App. 1997)

Echoing its published decision in State v. Talley Industries, Inc, 182 Ariz. 17, 893 P.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1994), the Court rejected Woolworth’s contention that it and its subsidiaries Kinney Shoe Corp. and Kinney Service Corp. were unitry and allowed to filed a combined return under Arizona corporate income tax regulations. The Court concluded that there were insufficient substantial transactions, interrelationships and interdependence of basic operations between Woolworth and the Kinney subsidiaries to justify the basic operational integration required under Arizona law.

Arcon Construction Co. v. City of Phoenix, 1 CA-TX 97-0002 (Ct. App. 1997)

Allied Signal Laminate Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County et al., 1 CA-TX 95-0012 (Ct. App. 1996)

State of Arizona v. The Original Apartment Movers, Inc., 1 CA-TX 94-0014 (Ct. App. 1995)

During an earlier appeal by the taxpayer, the Tax Court issued an order staying any further Department administrative action against it during its appeal of the propriety of a Department audit. Following the Court’s ruling that the Department could proceed with its audit of the taxpayer, and the Department’s issuance of an administrative subpoena, the taxpayer argued that the subpoena was barred by the Tax Court’s previous order. The Court reject the assertion that the previous order was law of the case and binding on the proceedings. Law of the case was inapplicable since the order did not address the merits of the case. In addition, the Court adjudication for the first appeal overruled the Tax Court’s order.

F. W. Woolworth, Kinney Shoe Corp., et al v. State of Arizona, 1 CA-TX 95-0018A (Ct. App. 1996)

The Arizona Tax Court dismissed Woolworth's appeal from the inactive calendar pursuant to Rule V(e) of the Uniform Rule of Practice of the Superior Court of Arizona.  The Court held that this was an abuse of discretion by the Tax Court.   Woolworth had been vigorously prosecuting the case and had filed a motion to place the case on the Tax Court's pending appeals calendar due a very similar case being held at the Court of Appeals.  Arizona case law favors resolving disputes on the merits.

State of Arizona v. Crain & Associates Development Co., Inc., 1 CA-TX 93-0002 (Ct. App. 1995)

Canyon Contracting Co. v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 1 CA-TX 92-0007 (Ct. App. 1993)

 

© 1996 Michael G. Galloway

Everything contained in this website is resource material only and not intended as legal advice. Case summaries are basic overviews for guidance and should not be used as a substitute for reading and analyzing the case.  If you have a legal issue regarding state or local taxation, please consult with an attorney who is experienced in the field. Sending an e-mail to ArizonaTax.com does not establish an attorney-client relationship and the communication is not subject to attorney-client privilege.