Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, 958 P.2d 1.

36 citing documents.

South Point Energy Center LLC v. Ador Ariz. 2022
South Point Energy Center LLC v. Ador Ariz. 2022
221 Ariz. at 248 ¶ 16; see also Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, (recognizing that generally “a permanent structure placed upon and attached to the realty by a tenant is real property belonging to the lessor”).
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
Cf. Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, , (“Rather than exempting certain property from taxation, class 12 merely provided a different assessment rate for such property” when it imposed only a 1% tax rate instead of the 25% tax rate imposed upon property in other classes).
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
See, e.g., Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, -91 , -7 (App.1997) (construing “ownership,” which is undefined in Title 42, as “necessarily including] the right to control and dispose of the asset”).
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Honda Motor Co., , Cutter Aviation, , ).
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Honda Motor Co., , Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, , ).
Calpine Construction Finance Co. v. Arizona Depatment of Revenue 211 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Calpine Construction Finance Co. v. Arizona Depatment of Revenue 211 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 16 Ownership for property tax purposes signifies the “collection of rights to use and enjoy property, including [the] right to transmit it to others.” Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
We are nonetheless aware that subsequent legislation clarifying a statute "is strongly indicative of the legislature's original intent.” Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, , (quoting Police Pension Bd.
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, -94 , -10 (App.1997) (assuming county lacked standing, court could address challenge to statute in order to conserve judicial resources).
Havasu Springs Resort Co. v. La Paz County 18 P.3d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Havasu Springs Resort Co. v. La Paz County 18 P.3d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
“[T]he sine qua non of ownership is the right to control and dispose of the asset.” Cutter Aviation, Inc., v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, -91 , -7 (App.1997).
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Cutter Aviation, Inc. [and Southwest Airlines Co.] v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , In re America West Airlines, Inc.
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Maricopa County 993 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Maricopa County 993 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 16 Consequently, the County’s reliance on Cutter Aviation, , is unavailing.
Bahr v. State 985 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Airport Properties v. Maricopa County 985 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Airport Properties v. Maricopa County 985 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
I. BACKGROUND OF APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND CASE LAW ¶ 2 In Cutter Aviation, , review denied June 25, 1998, we recounted in detail the legislative and decisional history of a controversy with facts similar to those of these taxpayers’ in many respects.
Bahr v. State 985 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See generally In re America West Airlines, Inc., -32 , -78 (1994); Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , review denied, June 25,1998.
Magellan South Mountain Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 968 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Magellan South Mountain Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 968 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See generally In re America West Airlines, Inc., -32 , 533 n. 4, -78 , 1079 n. 4 (1994); Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , , 243 Ariz. Adv.
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
See Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
And see Cutter Aviation v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , 494 — 496, -12 (App.1997) (assuming county lacked standing court could address challenge to statute to conserve judicial resources and avoid the expense of substituting individual taxpayers as parties).
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
We rejected these arguments in Cutter Aviation