Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tower Plaza Investments, Limited v. DeWitt, 508 P.2d 324.

63 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Marcos Isaac Danner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Marcos Isaac Danner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
(“[A] statute is not retroactive in application simply because it may relate to antecedent facts.”); (“[L]aws are not retrospective by their mere relation to antecedent conditions.”); Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 273 (1994) (“When 5 Of note is
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
(“The [transaction privilege] tax is not upon sales, as such, but upon the privilege or right to engage in business in the State, although measured by the gross volume of business activity conducted within the State.”).
First American Title Insurance v. Johnson Bank 372 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2016
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(the transaction privilege tax is imposed on gross revenues instead of on individual transactions); Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., 218 Ariz. *68 141, 142, ¶ 7, (“The liability for TPT falls on the taxpayer, not on the taxpayer’s customers.”) (cit
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
see also Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 269 , 114 S.Ct.
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenue 158 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenue 158 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., , see also Tower Plaza Invs., , (stating that “the tax is not upon sales ...
Garcia v. Browning 151 P.3d 533 Ariz. 2007
Garcia v. Browning 151 P.3d 533 Ariz. 2007
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
see also Jordan v. State, 56 S.W.3d 326, 333 (Tex.Ct.App.2001).
Zuther v. State 14 P.3d 295 Ariz. 2000
Zuther v. State 14 P.3d 295 Ariz. 2000
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 11 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2000
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 11 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2000
that “a statute is not retroactive in application simply because it may relate to antecedent facts.” Tower, 109 Ariz. at 250 , 508 P.2d at 326 ; see also Hall, 149 Ariz. at 139 , 717 P.2d at 443 .
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
v. DeWitt, -52 , -28 (1973) (holding that the Legislature may tax future rents in leases made prior to.
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 868 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 868 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The Arizona Supreme Court has defined “retroactive law” as one “which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.” Tower Plaza Invs.
McClead v. Pima County 849 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McClead v. Pima County 849 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Earthworks Contracting, Ltd. v. Mendel-Allison Construction of California, Inc. 804 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Earthworks Contracting, Ltd. v. Mendel-Allison Construction of California, Inc. 804 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
this Court considered the effect of a tax which, though measured by gross receipts recorded after the enactment of the statute, was based upon leases entered into prior to the statute’s enactment.
Harrison v. Ellis 704 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Harrison v. Ellis 704 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Tower Plaza Investments, , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1118 (1974).
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Cochise Airlines 626 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Cochise Airlines 626 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Tower Plaza Investments, , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1118 , 94 S.Ct.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Hane Construction Co. 564 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977