Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona State Tax Commission v. Ensign, 257 P.2d 392.

29 citing documents.

Arizona Department of Revenue v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 937 P.2d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Overruled Arizona Department of Revenue v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 937 P.2d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The court rejected the argument stating: It is true that we have held that “in tax matters — when a previous decision is overruled — the new decision is given prospective effect only.” Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Ensign
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Tax Comm’n v. Ensign, , -93 (1953).
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
This is not a case in which a state agency has attempted retroactively to change an administrative ruling or regulation of general application, see George v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , or in which an established holding of an appellate court has been overruled, see Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Ensign
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
Distinguished Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
B. Retroactivity of This Decision The Department argues that if we find that the tax is applicable to Wilderness World, then our decision should be given prospective effect only, citing Tax Comm’n v. Ensign, -77 , and City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corp., 14 Ariz.App.
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
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Sand & Rock Co. 745 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1987
Overruled State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Sand & Rock Co. 745 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1987
It is true that we have held that “in tax matters—when a previous decision is overruled—the new decision is given prospective effect only.” Arizona State Tax Comm’
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
v. Ensign, , Hollywood Continental Films v. Industrial Commission, 19 Ariz.App.
State v. Mendibles 606 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Mendibles 606 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
*8 O’ , , See Annot., 10 A.L.R.3d 1371 .
Reed v. Reed 604 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
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)
Adams v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Adams v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
See also: P.2d 770 (1963); , ; City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation, 14 Ariz.App.
Hollywood Continental Films v. Industrial Commission 506 P.2d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hollywood Continental Films v. Industrial Commission 506 P.2d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation 482 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation 482 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
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 Com'n v. Garrett Corporation 291 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1955
Arizona State Tax Com'n v. Garrett Corporation 291 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1955
ible personal property whatsoever at retail, * We have repeatedly held of this section and in fact of the entire Excise Revenue Act that the tax imposed is a tax on the privilege or right to engage in business and is not a sales tax: , ; , , on rehearing , ; , ; , , 171 A.L.R.