Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smotkin v. Peterson, 236 P.2d 743.

38 citing documents.

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
And, , , Arizona concedes that it must refund taxes paid even when not marked “under protest” if at the time of the payment it had no “semblance of authority” to assess the tax.
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
It also stated: [I]f the taxpayer desires to raise a question as to his taxes he is compelled to scrupulously follow the statutory procedures, , [1951], for the refund of taxes paid is by virtue of governmental grace rather than by reason of any legal right which the taxpayer has to such a refund.
Maricopa County v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
It argues that the due process right to challenge a
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Care Construction Corp. 802 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Care Construction Corp. 802 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
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
Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 776 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1989
Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 776 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1989
And, , and Bodco Building Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 5 Ariz.App.
Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Neumann Caribbean International, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Neumann Caribbean International, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See also, , , Bodco Building Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 5 Ariz.App.
Blubaum v. Cantor 522 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Blubaum v. Cantor 522 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
See also, , Drachman v. Jay, 4 Ariz.App.
Campbell v. SUPERIOR CT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 501 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Campbell v. SUPERIOR CT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 501 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
B. This legislation is in accord with judicial decisions in the area of taxpayer relief: “If the taxpayer desires to question the classification in which he has been placed by the [tax collector] or to raise any other question involving the validity of the tax he may do so in his action for the recovery of the taxes paid.”
Maricopa County v. Novasic 473 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Maricopa County v. Novasic 473 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State Tax Commission v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1969
State Tax Commission v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1969
If there is some semblance of authority for the imposition of such tax, plaintiff’s remedy is to pay the tax under protest, then test its validity by suing for recovery of the amount so paid under said Section 73-841.” , involved the collection of the privilege license tax.
Moore Business Forms, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 448 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Moore Business Forms, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 448 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
It is our view that the plaintiff’s contentions are foreclosed by the reasoning of City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , , and the direct holding of Bodco Building Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Com’n, 5 Ariz.App.
Bodco Building Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 429 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Bodco Building Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 429 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
1939 § 73-1327), , was decided.
Cochise County v. Southern Pacific Co. 401 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Cochise County v. Southern Pacific Co. 401 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
302 , 208 S.W.2d 247 , and if the taxpayer desires to raise a question as to his taxes he is compelled to scrupulously follow the statutory procedures, , , for the refund of taxes paid is by virtue of governmental grace rather than by reason of any legal right which the taxpayer has to such a refund.
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
302 , 208 S.W.2d 247 , and if the taxpayer desires to raise a question as to his taxes he is compelled to scrupulously follow the statutory procedures, , , for the refund of taxes paid is by virtue of governmental grace rather than by reason of any legal right which the taxpayer has to such a refund.
Peterson v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 368 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1962
Peterson v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 368 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1962
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
to support the legal proposition that the “exclusive” remedy for determining whether certain income is taxable under this act is to pay such taxes under protest and follow the remedy allowed under A.R.S.