Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Miami Copper Co. Division, Tennessee Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 589 P.2d 24.

26 citing documents.

City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Ariz. 2019
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Ariz. 2019
not preclude eventual taxation.” (allowing enforcement of an unambiguous tax 16 CITY OF PHOENIX ET AL V. ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC. ET AL Opinion of the Court statute despite earlier contrary administrative interpretations (citing Miami Copper Co. v. State Tax Comm’n, )).
Phoenix v. Orbitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phoenix v. Orbitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n
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
ry to US West’s analysis, however, neither the cases nor the statute constitutes authority for its underlying thesis that “double taxation” is otherwise fundamentally “impermissible.” ¶ 33 Moreover, “[d]ouble taxation occurs [only] ‘when the same property or person is taxed twice for the same purpose for the same taxing period by the same taxing authority.’ ” Miami Copper Co. v. State Tax Comm’n, , (quoting Milwaukee Motor Transp.
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See also Miami Copper Co. Div., , cert.
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See also Miami Copper Co. Div., Tennessee Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, , cert.
Rowe International, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 796 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rowe International, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 796 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, , Fagner v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 541, 543 (9th Cir.1985).
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, , : *622 Double taxation occurs “when the same property or person is taxed twice for the same purpose for the same taxing period by the same taxing authority ...” Milwaukee Motor Transportation Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 292 Minn. 66 , 193 N.W.2d 605, 612 (1971).
Department of Revenue v. Moki Mac River Expeditions, Inc. 773 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Department of Revenue v. Moki Mac River Expeditions, Inc. 773 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In Miami Copper Co. v. Tax Comm’n, , we stated that the taxpayer’s business included both mining and smelting.
Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. v. City of Tempe 714 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. v. City of Tempe 714 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Motorola, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 694 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Motorola, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 694 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Miami Copper Co. v. State Tax Comm ’n, , cert.
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Double taxation occurs “when the same property or person is taxed twice for the same purpose for the same taxing period by the same taxing authority ____” Miami Copper Company Division, , quoting Milwaukee Motor Transportation Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 292 Minn. 66, 77 , 193 N.W.2d 605, 612 (1971); accord Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 4 Cal.3d 633 , 94 Cal.Rptr.
Arizona Lotus Corp. v. City of Phoenix 663 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Arizona Lotus Corp. v. City of Phoenix 663 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Transamerica Title Insurance 604 P.2d 1128 Ariz. 1979
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Transamerica Title Insurance 604 P.2d 1128 Ariz. 1979
As was stated in Miami Copper Co. Division, , inaction by an administrative agency does not constitute a construction of the statute, favorable or otherwise.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by