Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Alvord v. State Tax Commission, 213 P.2d 363.

53 citing documents.

Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶22 “[T]he courts will not strain, stretch and struggle to uncover hidden taxable items,” State Tax Comm’n v. Miami Copper Co., (citing Alvord v. State Tax Comm’n, ), but such efforts are not required here.
Saban v. Ador 418 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Saban v. Ador 418 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§§ 42-5008 (2018), -5071 (2018); (recounting history of Arizona's business privilege tax on car- rental services).
Ziegfield v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ziegfield v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
As our supreme court has explained, the rule of ejusdem generis is “only one of many [rules of statutory construction] which are resorted to, if necessary, to attempt to expose some unknown legislative intent.” Alvord v. State Tax Comm’n
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
y. Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, “where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class of those enumerated.” -54 , quoting 59 C.J. Statutes § 581 (1932); see also Alvord v. Tax Comm’n
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
See Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp., , Alvord v. State Tax Comm’n
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Magma Copper Co. 674 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Magma Copper Co. 674 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
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
Miami Copper Co. Division, Tennessee Corp. v. State Tax Commission 589 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Miami Copper Co. Division, Tennessee Corp. v. State Tax Commission 589 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
In support of its position, , : “For twelve years the administrative officers enforced this law as now contended for by petitioners.
Morris v. Arizona Corporation Commission 539 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Morris v. Arizona Corporation Commission 539 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Tax Commission v. Ranchers Exploration & Development Corp. 528 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Tax Commission v. Ranchers Exploration & Development Corp. 528 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Although Arizona’s general rules of construction that a revenue statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the taxpayer and strictly against the State and should not be extended to include something not specifically covered by the language of the statute itself, , Ebasco Services, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Com’n, , we do not feel that § 42-1310 is so ambiguous as to bring this rule of construction into play.
Tower Plaza Investments, Limited v. DeWitt 508 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1973
Tower Plaza Investments, Limited v. DeWitt 508 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1973
Because substantial revenues of the State are involved, as well as the legal rights of petitioners as taxpayers, and, , we accepted jurisdiction.
Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 459 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1969
Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 459 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1969
Sanders v. Folsom 451 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1969
Sanders v. Folsom 451 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1969
of United States, , ; Arizona Tax Commission v. Dairy & Consumers Co-op Assn., , ; , ; State v. Airesearch Mfg.
Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp. 429 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp. 429 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Williams v. Pipe Trades Industry Program of Arizona 409 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1966
Williams v. Pipe Trades Industry Program of Arizona 409 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1966
Warren Trading Post Company v. Moore 387 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1963
Moore v. Arthur Realty Corp. 386 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1963
Moore v. Arthur Realty Corp. 386 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1963
Peterson v. Smith 376 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1962
County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc. 376 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1962
Peterson v. Smith 376 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1962
-292 , , 366-367: “When this amendment was adopted the law makers had before them the case of White v. Moore, supra.
County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc. 376 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1962
ites cases which stand for the correct proposition that a nearly contemporaneous legislative act interpreting a new constitutional provision will, after acquiescence in this interpretation by the interested parties for a period of years, be highly persuasive as the correct interpretation, e. g. New Cornelia Copper Company v. Espinoza, 268 F. 742 (9th Cir.1920)
State Tax Commission v. Ryan-Evans Drug Stores 357 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1960
State Tax Commission v. Ryan-Evans Drug Stores 357 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1960
Arizona Tax Commission et al. v. Dairy & Consumers Cooperative Association, Ariz., , ; Alvord et al., v. State Tax Commission, , ; and that •any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the tax authority and in favor of the taxpayer.
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
Corporation Commission v. Equitable Life Assur.
City of Phoenix v. Borden Company 326 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1958
City of Phoenix v. Borden Company 326 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1958
Cooperative Ass’n, , ; , ; and that any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the tax authority and in favor of the taxpayer.
Moore v. Smotkin 283 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1955
Moore v. Smotkin 283 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1955
State Tax Commission v. Miami Copper Co. 246 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1952
State Tax Commission v. Miami Copper Co. 246 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1952
Corporation Commission v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States 239 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1951
Corporation Commission v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States 239 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1951
Arizona Tax Commission v. Dairy & Consumers Cooperative Ass'n 215 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1950