Cited by

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

80 citing documents.

City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
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
City of Phoenix v. Marathon Steel Co. 722 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
City of Phoenix v. Marathon Steel Co. 722 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Other than its citation to Ebasco Services, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , for the proposition that every interpretation is made against a tax exemption, the City cites no authority at all in support of its argument.
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
Ebasco Services, , , Dennis Development Co.
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
Ebasco, an engineering and *328 construction firm, successfully argued that its contracting business was the only taxable activity and that there was no privilege excise tax liability with respect to its engineering services.
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
Our conclusion is further supported by Ebasco Services, , where our Supreme Court held, in part, that- “[t]he proper measure of the tax imposed on the privilege of doing business as a contractor within this state has been established by the legislature to be the GROSS RECEIPTS from that business.
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
e, , this court held that the tax liability base of a contractor for transaction privilege tax purposes “does not include proceeds from the sale of real property, because such proceeds are not the result of any activity listed in the statute as making up the business of contracting.” See also Ebasco Services
Lincoln Property Co. v. City of Tucson 641 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Lincoln Property Co. v. City of Tucson 641 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
believes that a line of Arizona authority controls this case, citing State Tax Commission v. Holmes & Narver, Inc., , , and Dennis Development Co.
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley 613 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley 613 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
2A Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 49.11 (4th ed. C.D.Sands 1973)
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
We have repeatedly said that such words will be read to gain their fair meaning, but not to gather new objects of taxation by strained construction or implication.” See also: Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n
Dennis Development Co. v. Department of Revenue 595 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Dennis Development Co. v. Department of Revenue 595 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State Tax Commission v. Holmes & Narver, Inc. 548 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1976
State Tax Commission v. Holmes & Narver, Inc. 548 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1976
Holmes & Narver relies principally upon this Court’s decision in Ebasco Services, , contending that design and engineering services are professional services which are not taxable and that the nature of the receipts, not the form of the contractual relationships, should govern taxability.
State v. Selby 544 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Selby 544 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Ebasco Services, , Phoenix Title &amp
State Tax Commission v. Ranchers Exploration & Development Corp. 528 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Tax Commission v. Ranchers Exploration & Development Corp. 528 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Although Arizona’s general rules of construction that a revenue statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the taxpayer and strictly against the State and should not be extended to include something not specifically covered by the language of the statute itself, , Ebasco Services, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Com’n, , we do not feel that § 42-1310 is so ambiguous as to bring this rule of construction into play.
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. 489 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. 489 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Ebasco Services, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Com’n

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by