Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Tax Commission v. Miami Copper Co., 246 P.2d 871.

48 citing documents.

Starr v. Az Bof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Starr v. Az Bof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cf. State Tax Comm’n v. Miami Copper Co., (“[T]he right of appeal exists solely by virtue of express constitutional or statutory provision.
Gonzales v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gonzales v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
is procedural and subject to reasonable regulations by the courts.”
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.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. State 44 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. State 44 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 41 “[D]oubtful tax statutes should be given a strict construction against the taxing power, giving due regard to the expression of the legislative intent----” State Tax Comm’n v. Miami Copper Co., , see also Wilderness World, 182 Ariz. at 198-99 , 895 P.2d at 110-11 (explaining that the words of a taxing statute are given their plain and ordinary meanings, and ambiguities in taxing statutes are resolved in favor of the taxpayer).
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
We also note the full statement of the maxim: “[Djoubtful tax statutes should be given a strict construction against the taxing power, giving due regard to the expression of the legislative intent.” State Tax Comm’n v. Miami Copper Co., , (emphasis added); accord State ex rel.
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See State Tax Comm’n v. Miami Copper Co., , (right to appeal is substantive right).
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Tax Comm’n v. Miami Copper Co., 74 Ariz. *484 234 , State Tax Comm’n v. Ranchers Exploration & Dev.
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
Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 575 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 575 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
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
City of Tempe v. Pilot Properties, Inc. 527 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Tempe v. Pilot Properties, Inc. 527 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
.a grant of funds or property from a government, to a private person or company to assist in the establishment or support of an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.”
Dewitt v. Magma Copper Company 492 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Dewitt v. Magma Copper Company 492 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Navajo County v. Monument Valley Inn, Inc. 478 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Navajo County v. Monument Valley Inn, Inc. 478 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
And: “In this jurisdiction we are firmly committed to the doctrine that doubtful tax statutes should be given a strict construction against the taxing power, giving due regard to the expression of the legislative intent; and that the courts will not ‘strain, stretch and struggle’ to uncover hidden taxable items.”
State Tax Commission v. Peck 468 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Tax Commission v. Peck 468 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Sanders v. Folsom 451 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1969
Sanders v. Folsom 451 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1969
Co., supra; and also giving due regard to the expression of legislative intent, , , rehearing denied, , ; , ; , .
Ginn v. Superior Court, in and for County of Pima 404 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Ginn v. Superior Court, in and for County of Pima 404 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. Texas Independent Oil Co. 388 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1964
State v. Texas Independent Oil Co. 388 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1964
-243, , this court said: “In this jurisdiction we are firmly committed to the doctrine that doubtful tax statutes should be given a strict construction against the taxing power, giving due regard to the expression of the legislative intent; and that the courts will not ‘strain, stretch and struggle’
Knape v. Brown 342 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1959
Knape v. Brown 342 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1959
See, , ; , , and the cases cited therein.
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
of United States, , ; , ; Moore v. Smotkin, supra; State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick and Clay Products, Inc., , .
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. Sam Knight Mining Lease, Inc. 246 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1952
State Tax Commission v. Kennecott Copper Corp. 246 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1952
State Tax Commission v. Castle Dome Copper Co. 246 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1952
State Tax Commission v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 246 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1952
State Tax Commission v. Kennecott Copper Corp. 246 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1952
State Tax Commission v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 246 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1952
State Tax Commission v. Castle Dome Copper Co. 246 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1952
This is a companion case to State Tax Commission v. Miami Copper Company, *248 , .
State Tax Commission v. Sam Knight Mining Lease, Inc. 246 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1952