Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, 851 P.2d 132.

26 citing documents.

McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Power Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Power Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Power Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , (citations omitted).
State v. Garcia 931 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Garcia 931 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
against the effect that non-application would have on the state’s effective exercise of its sovereignty and any resulting damage to the public interest.”
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
516 , 141 (App. 1992), in which we held that DOR was es-topped from denying a taxpayer an otherwise appropriate deduction because the taxpayer had followed DOR’s erroneous instructions and omitted a prerequisite procedural step.
State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Power Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Distinguished Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
We distinguished Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , on which Valencia extensively relies, on the ground that it permitted estoppel only as to representations concerning the procedures for claiming tax benefits that the taxpayer was entitled to receive as a matter of substance.
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Driggs 938 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Driggs 938 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
PCS’s reliance on our decision in Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , is also misplaced.
Carlson v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 906 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Carlson v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 906 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arizona Department of Revenue v. M. Greenberg Construction 897 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arizona Department of Revenue v. M. Greenberg Construction 897 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Power Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
Gibbons v. Superior Court 873 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gibbons v. Superior Court 873 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Power Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue