Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona State Tax Commission v. Staggs Realty Corp., 337 P.2d 281.

48 citing documents.

9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
h 5 9W HALO V. ADOR Opinion of the Court also aligns with this Court’s directive that, in tax cases, it is important to “gain the[] fair meaning” of the statute’s words to avoid gathering “new objects of taxation by strained construction or implication.” Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp.
A & P Ranch Ltd v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
A & P Ranch Ltd v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“[S]uch words will be read to gain their fair meaning, but not to gather new objects of taxation by strained construction or implication.” Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp.
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp.
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Ariz. 2019
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Ariz. 2019
Inc. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, see also City of Peoria v. Brink’s Home Sec., Inc., ¶ 6 (2011) (“We read tax provisions ‘to gain their fair meaning, but not to gather new objects of taxation by strained construction or implication.’” (quoting Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp., )).
Ziegfield v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ziegfield v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
When interpreting tax statutes, we “begin with the words of the operative statute.” Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp.
Val-Pak East Valley, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 272 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Val-Pak East Valley, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 272 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In so doing, we read the statutory provisions “ ‘to gain their fair meaning, but not to gather new objects of taxation by strained construction or implication.’” Brink’s Home Sec., 226 Ariz. at 333, ¶ 6 , 247 P.3d at 1003 (quoting Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp., , ).
City of Peoria v. BRINK'S HOME SECURITY, INC. 247 P.3d 1002 Ariz. 2011
City of Peoria v. BRINK'S HOME SECURITY, INC. 247 P.3d 1002 Ariz. 2011
¶6 “[I]t is especially important in tax cases to begin with the words of the operative statute.” Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 161 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 161 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
For example, in construing tax statutes, we must be careful “to gain their fair meaning, but not to gather new objects of taxation by strained construction or implication.” Qwest Dex, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 , (citing Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp., , ).
Qwest Dex, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 109 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Qwest Dex, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 109 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
We read the statutes’ words “to gain their fair meaning, but not to gather new objects of taxation by strained construction or implication.” Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp.
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
Inc. v. Tax Comm’n, , (stating that “words will be read to gain their fair meaning, but not to gather new objects of taxation by strained construction or implication”), quoting Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp.
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
SDC Management, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 808 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
SDC Management, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 808 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Kitchell Contractors, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 726 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Kitchell Contractors, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 726 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
In this review process, , : “[I]t is especially important in tax cases to begin with the words of the operative statute.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Tempe 708 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Tempe 708 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
We are guided in the construction of a , : First, it is especially important in tax cases to begin with the words of the operative statute.
City of Phoenix v. Santa Anita Development Corp. 685 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
City of Phoenix v. Santa Anita Development Corp. 685 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Staggs Realty Corp.
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Chastain Builders, Inc. 669 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Chastain Builders, Inc. 669 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev. 644 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev. 644 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Wenner v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. 598 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Wenner v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. 598 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
v. Staggs Realty Corp., , the Supreme Court stated that, “it is especially important in tax cases to begin with the words of the operative statute.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Maricopa County 587 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1978
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Maricopa County 587 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1978
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
3 The words “ * * * will be read to gain their fair meaning, but not to gather new objects of taxation by strained construction or implication.”
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
v. Staggs Realty Corp., , we stated that, “it is especially important in tax cases to begin with the words of the operative statute.
Miller v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 446 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Miller v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 446 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
the scope of the legislative definition of “contractor” has been broadened: “ * * * at least since 1933 (compare Laws of 1931, Chapter 102, Section 3, defining a contractor as a person who ‘undertakes with another’ building construction, with Laws of 1933, Chapter 104, Section 3 deleting the wor
Campbell v. Commonwealth Plan, Inc. 422 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1966
Campbell v. Commonwealth Plan, Inc. 422 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1966
In the most recent case cited for this proposition, , , this court stated: “First, it is especially important in tax cases to begin with the words of the operative statute.