Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 459 P.2d 719.

80 citing documents.

Arizona Cardinals v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Arizona Cardinals v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Inc. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, and (3) Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Parsons-Jurden Corp.
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
Inc. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, (quoting J. H. Welsh & Son Contracting Co. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, ).
Bsi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bsi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Inc. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, (citations omitted); accord Capitol Castings, 207 Ariz. at 447, ¶ 10 (recognizing that when legislative intent cannot be determined, the statute is to be construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer).
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Ariz. 2019
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Ariz. 2019
Inc. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Ormond Builders, Inc. 166 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Ormond Builders, Inc. 166 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ebasco Servs., Inc. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
We do not understand People’s
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See Ebasco Servs., Inc. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, , (deductions) (relying on general rule that “every interpretation shall be against *512 exemptions from taxing statutes”) (quoting J.H.
Walden Books Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 12 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Walden Books Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 12 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Ebasco Sens., Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , (interpreting former A.R.S.
Davis v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Davis v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 970 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 970 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , Brink Elec.
ADVO System, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 942 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
ADVO System, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 942 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Ebasco Servs., , Ebasco entered into a formal purchasing agent relationship with its client under which it purchased heavy equipment in the client’s name for installation at a power generating station Ebasco was building for the client.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Public Service Co. 934 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Public Service Co. 934 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n
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
See Ebasco Services, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n
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
Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n
Brink Electric Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 909 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Brink Electric Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 909 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
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., , see also RDB Thomas Road Partnership v. City of Phoe
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. 893 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. 893 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The City acknowledges that “where there is ambiguity, a revenue statute should be construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer and strictly against the state.” See Ebasco Servs., Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n
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
Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 880 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 880 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Invoking the principle that exemptions from taxation are to be narrowly construed against the taxpayer, Ebasco Serv., Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , the City assails the proposition that a truck lessor “causes” its truck “to be operated” on the public highways, and argues that this language must be interpreted to comprehend only persons who operate trucks directly or through employees or agents.
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 829 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 829 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ebasco Services v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n
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
Ebasco Services, , and State Tax Commission v. Holmes & Narver, Inc., , concerned taxpayers that engaged both in construction services and in design and engineering services.
In Re McKeever 819 P.2d 482 Ariz. 1991
In Re McKeever 819 P.2d 482 Ariz. 1991
Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n
Indigo Co. v. City of Tucson 804 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Indigo Co. v. City of Tucson 804 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(specialized equipment that construction contractor bought as purchasing agent for project owner did not become a “gross receipt” to the contractor when received for installation in the project).
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
(primary task in interpreting a statute is to determine and carry out the intent of the legislature); Ebasco Servs., Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , (taxing statutes are to be strictly construed against the taxing authority and liberally construed in favor of the taxpayer).
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
See also Ebasco Services, , (courts may look to subsequently enacted definition in searching for expression of earlier legislative intent).