Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby, 65 P.3d 458.

31 citing documents.

Empire Sw. LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue 422 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sun Lakes v. state/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sun Lakes v. state/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 16 (App. 2003).
SolarCity Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 396 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
SolarCity Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 396 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Although we generally liberally construe statutes that impose taxes in favor of taxpayers, CCI Europe, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, , 52 ¶ 8, we strictly construe tax deductions and exemptions, Ariz. Dep’t , 511-12 ¶ 16, -61 (App. 2003).
Marriage of Ames v. Ames 370 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marriage of Ames v. Ames 370 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 15 (App. 2003).
General Motors Corp. v. Maricopa County 350 P.3d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
General Motors Corp. v. Maricopa County 350 P.3d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
But although “tax deductions, subtractions, exemptions, and credits are to be strictly construed,” Ariz. Dep’t -12, ¶ 16 , -61 (App.2003), the rollover statute does not provide relief from or diminution of tax liability.
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 312 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 312 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
We “give the words used their ordinary meaning.” Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 14 , (citation omitted).
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 286 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 286 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See Ariz. Dep’t -12, ¶ 16 , -61 (App.2003).
Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 287 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 287 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Central Newspapers, Inc. 218 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Central Newspapers, Inc. 218 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We have recognized that an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute it enforces is accorded “great weight” and “if acquiesced in for a long period of time, will not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous.” Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 17
Watts v. Arizona Department of Revenue 210 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Watts v. Arizona Department of Revenue 210 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
E.g., Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 16 , (“[T]ax deductions, subtractions, exemptions, and credits are to be strictly construed.”).
In re MH 2008-000438 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-000438 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 15 , (citing Knight Transp.
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 15 , (citing Knight Transp.
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
We strictly construe tax statutes against exemptions, Ariz. Dep’t -12, ¶ 16 , -61 (App.2003), and presume that *453 property is not exempted, Hillman v. Flagstaff Cmty.
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
E.g., Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 16 , (“[T]ax deductions, subtractions, exemptions, and credits are to be strictly construed.”).
Walgreen Arizona Drug Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 97 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Walgreen Arizona Drug Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 97 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004