Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gosnell Development Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, 744 P.2d 451.

34 citing documents.

Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 19 , to support its position that “a State taxing authority cannot tax business competitors differently.” Gosnell, however, found that the legislature can tax certain classes differently, as long as the burden imposed on each person in the class is the same.
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
The tax court ordered that “the County refund [the Taxpayers] the difference between the 1996 property valuations and the 1997 increased property valuations of their properties.” In so ordering, , in which the court stated: *297 There can be no question that under applicable case law, Gosnell has been the victim of unconstitutional discrimination.
Kerr v. Killian 32 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Kerr v. Killian 32 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
and Smith v. State, 349 N.C.
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
Corp. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , these cases do no more than require that the plaintiff demonstrate the existence of a genuine governmental “classification.” ¶45 Once this connection becomes clear, applying equal protection analysis in this ease is relatively straightforward.
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
Corp. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , in which Division Two of this court granted a refund to a taxpayer that successfully challenged DOR’s enforcement of a tax statute on equal protection grounds.
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 916 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 916 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Corp. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
Brink Electric Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 909 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Brink Electric Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 909 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
Wilderness World Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 882 P.2d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Wilderness World Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 882 P.2d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Carp, v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
Sonitrol of Maricopa County v. City of Phoenix 891 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sonitrol of Maricopa County v. City of Phoenix 891 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sonitrol’s , is misplaced.
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See also, Pittsburgh & , (court abandoned common law doctrine that taxes paid voluntarily and without duress could not be recovered, and allowed recovery against the state); , (in an indirect application of es- *516 toppel, the court applied equal protection principles to require refund by the state of taxes paid by a taxpayer, notwithstanding the fact that the taxes had been imposed under a valid statute).
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 829 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 829 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
it argues that for DOR “to now deny People of Faith the same exemption it allowed other similarly situated taxpayers is unconstitutional.” We disagree.
SDC Management, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 808 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
SDC Management, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 808 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Corp. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , (taxpayer need not pay tax under protest in order to bring action for refund when it had no reason to anticipate that Department would engage in discriminatory conduct in the future); A.R.S.
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
(refund of transaction privilege tax paid by home builder ordered when department failed to collect such taxes from similarly situated and competing home builders).
Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue 787 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1989
Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue 787 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1989
Arizona Telco Federal Credit Union v. Arizona Department of Revenue 764 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
ARIZ. TELCO FED. CR. U. v. Dept. of Rev. 764 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
ARIZ. TELCO FED. CR. U. v. Dept. of Rev. 764 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arizona Telco Federal Credit Union v. Arizona Department of Revenue 764 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988