Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona State Tax Com'n v. Garrett Corporation, 291 P.2d 208.

56 citing documents.

Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The retailer may choose to pass the cost on to consumers, see Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp., but that choice confers no legal rights on the consumer, Karbal, 215 Ariz. at 118, ¶ 18.
Peters v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Peters v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Accord Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp., (“Regardless of where the burden rests, the decisive test under the class of taxing Acts now under consideration is where does the legal incidence of the tax fall.”); Home Depot, 230 Ariz. at 500, ¶ 8 (noting that “[t]he legal incidence of the tax is on the seller, though the seller may pass the cost of th
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 181 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2008
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 181 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2008
The TPT is not a sales tax, Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp., , but rather is a tax on the gross receipts of a person or entity engaged in business activities.
Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenue 158 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenue 158 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Penney, 125 Ariz. at 472 , 610 P.2d at 474 ; see also Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp., , -11 (1955) (stating that transaction privilege taxes do not have to be passed through to consumers even though common practice is to do so); Tucson Mech.
Interlott Technologies, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 72 P.3d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Interlott Technologies, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 72 P.3d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp., -93 , -11 (1955).
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
Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Canyoneers, Inc. 23 P.3d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Canyoneers, Inc. 23 P.3d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
section 42-5002(A)(1), from Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp., , and from the current and historical statutory schemes, that the law discouraged *142 taxpayers from shifting the transaction privilege tax burden to their customers, and that taxpayers were not entitled to refunds of such taxes unless they could show that the refunds would go back to the custome
City of Tucson v. Tucson Hotel Equity Ltd. Partnership 2 P.3d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
City of Tucson v. Tucson Hotel Equity Ltd. Partnership 2 P.3d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
19-250.1 seek to prevent merchants from “profiting at the expense of the purchaser under the guise of a compulsory tax.” Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp.
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
The tax base for the sale of retail goods is “the gross proceeds of sales or gross income derived from the business.” See Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp.
Peabody Coal Co. v. State 761 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Peabody Coal Co. v. State 761 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Garrett Corp.
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
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Cochise Airlines 626 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Cochise Airlines 626 P.2d 596 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
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Kunes v. Samaritan Health Service 590 P.2d 1359 Ariz. 1979
Kunes v. Samaritan Health Service 590 P.2d 1359 Ariz. 1979
Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff 578 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1978
Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff 578 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1978
it becomes clear that the legal incidence of the tax falls on the Flagstaff Vending Company.
Carriage Trade Management Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 557 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Carriage Trade Management Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 557 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 556 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1976
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 556 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1976
New Cornelia Cooperative Mercantile Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 533 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
New Cornelia Cooperative Mercantile Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 533 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Watkins Cigarette Service, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 526 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1974
Watkins Cigarette Service, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 526 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1974
dealing with the transaction privilege tax, the Court made reference to the practice of separately stating the tax independent of the sales price: “The section does not specifically authorize such practice; neither does it forbid it.
Tower Plaza Investments, Limited v. DeWitt 508 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1973
Tower Plaza Investments, Limited v. DeWitt 508 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1973
v. Garrett Corp., , we held that the legal incidence of the tax was on the person engaging in the business of selling tangible personal property at retail, and not upon the transaction, the sales.
State Tax Commission v. Howard P. Foley Co. 474 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Tax Commission v. Howard P. Foley Co. 474 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The taxing statutes involved here have been properly designated as a “tax on the privilege on the right to engage in business and not a * * * sales tax * * * [B]oth in practical and legal effect the tax is upon the person conducting a business and not upon the transaction, the sale.”
CF&I Steel Corp. v. State Tax Commission 462 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
CF&I Steel Corp. v. State Tax Commission 462 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arizona State Tax Com’n v. Garrett Corporation
Ashton Company v. City of Tucson 441 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Industrial Uranium Co. v. State Tax Commission 387 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1963
Industrial Uranium Co. v. State Tax Commission 387 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1963
Warren Trading Post Company v. Moore 387 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1963
Warren Trading Post Company v. Moore 387 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1963
Combustion Engineering, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 371 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1962