Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Duhame v. State Tax Commission, 179 P.2d 252.

73 citing documents.

Luther Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 74 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Luther Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 74 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Valencia, 191 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 39, n. 18 , 959 P.2d at 1269 , n. 18 (quoting Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , ) (citation omitted) (noting possibility that contractor/taxpayer “might have passed this tax” to government may be sufficient detriment).
Motorola, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 993 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Motorola, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 993 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Project were entitled to Town of Maraña deductions or exemptions from the town’s transaction privilege tax for gross proceeds of certain qualifying “sales.” We rejected the contractor’s arguments, and concluded that the underlying construction contract was not a “contract to sell property” under the town ordinances and based on the Arizona Supreme Court’s reasoning in Du-hame v. State Tax Comm’n, -79 , -59 (1947), overruled in part on other grounds by Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Reve
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
On the estoppel issue, the court held that Ariz. Const, art. IX, § 1, Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , and Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , prevent the Department from being equitably estopped by its incorrect representations that no tax was applicable.
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
overruled on other grounds, Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , in which our supreme court had proscribed estoppel on constitutional grounds.
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, -79 , -63 (1947).
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Distinguished Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In PCS we held that Ariz. Const. Art. 9, section 1, Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , overruled on other grounds, Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , and Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, supra, prevent DOR from being equitably estopped by its incorrect representations that the tax did not apply.
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Driggs 938 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Driggs 938 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See, e.g., Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , Knoell Brothers Constr., Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , overruled on other grounds, Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , revolved around the fact that the State Tax Commission had adopted a rule excepting certain items sold to contractors from taxation.
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
A similar issue was previously raised under analogous provisions of the Excise Tax Act of 1935
Arizona Department of Revenue v. M. Greenberg Construction 897 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arizona Department of Revenue v. M. Greenberg Construction 897 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , -62 (1947).
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
RDB Thomas Road Partnership v. City of Phoenix 883 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
RDB Thomas Road Partnership v. City of Phoenix 883 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n
Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 854 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 854 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Duhame v. State Tax 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
: "Were this [no estoppel] not the rule taxing officials could waive most of the state’s revenue."
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 822 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 822 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See, e.g., Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Ensign, , , on reh’g, , Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n
Cochise County v. Dandoy 567 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1977
Cochise County v. Dandoy 567 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1977
Keeton v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Keeton v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
For example, see: , P.2d 392 (1953)
State v. Superior Court for Maricopa County 550 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1976
State v. Superior Court for Maricopa County 550 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1976
In construing tax statutes, it is the rule that the act must be certain, clear and unambiguous as to the subject of taxation, , and doubtful tax statutes are given a strict construction against the taxing power
State Tax Commission v. Holmes & Narver, Inc. 548 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1976
State Tax Commission v. Holmes & Narver, Inc. 548 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1976
that the tax is to be measured by all of the business activity of the taxpayer rather than merely a part of it.
Ellingson v. Sloan 527 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation 482 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Overruled City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation 482 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Bade v. Drachman 417 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Bade v. Drachman 417 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Staggs Realty Corp. 337 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1959
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Staggs Realty Corp. 337 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1959
State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc. 330 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1958
State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc. 330 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1958
State Tax Commission v. Al Stovall Manganese 327 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1958

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by