Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Tax Commission v. Peck, 476 P.2d 849.

27 citing documents.

City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Ariz. 2019
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Ariz. 2019
See State Tax Comm’n v. Peck, Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 69 (2012) (“Words are to be understood in their ordinary everyday meanings – unless the context indicates that they bear a technical sense.”).
Jones Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 355 P.3d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jones Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 355 P.3d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In State Tax Commission v. Peck, our supreme court interpreted the terms “leasing” and “renting” to determine whether TPT applied to income derived from a self-service laundromat and a self-service car wash.2
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
(“Words are to be given their usual and commonly understood meaning unless it is plain or clear that a different meaning was intended.”); see also State Tax Comm’n v. Peck, , (applying the ordinary meaning of “leasing” and “renting” because “it does not appear from the context that a special meaning was intended”).
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Followed Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
§ 1-213 (2002); see State Tax Comm’n v. Peck
Energy Squared, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 56 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Energy Squared, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 56 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
§ 42-5071(A) and its predecessor hinges on the degree of control over the property in question that is ceded to its putative “lessee” or “renter.”
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. 804 P.2d 1310 Ariz. 1991
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. 804 P.2d 1310 Ariz. 1991
State Tax Comm’n v. Peck
Arizona Public Service Co. v. City of Phoenix 716 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arizona Public Service Co. v. City of Phoenix 716 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Multiple Listing Service of Tucson, Inc. v. City of Tucson 714 P.2d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Multiple Listing Service of Tucson, Inc. v. City of Tucson 714 P.2d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
where the operation of coin-operated laundromats and car-washing machines was held by the court to constitute the renting of personal property and therefore subject to the Arizona transaction privilege tax.
City of Phoenix v. Bentley-Dille Gradall Rentals, Inc. 665 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
City of Phoenix v. Bentley-Dille Gradall Rentals, Inc. 665 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Western Waste Service Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court 584 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1978
Western Waste Service Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court 584 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1978
we said: “The major dispute between the parties here concerns the meaning of the terms ‘leasing’ or ‘renting’ as used in § 42-1314, subsec.
State v. Bionomics International, Ltd. 543 P.2d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Bionomics International, Ltd. 543 P.2d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Padilla v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Koval v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Koval v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Viewing the language in light of its ordinary common meaning, , Parise v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 16 Ariz.App.
Valley National Bank v. Educational Credit Bureau, Inc. 531 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Valley National Bank v. Educational Credit Bureau, Inc. 531 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Parise v. Industrial Commission, 16 Ariz.App.