Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., 88 P.3d 159.

81 citing documents.

9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., requires courts to interpret the use exemption statute using flexible and industry-specific definitions.
Oak Creek v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Oak Creek v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 9 (2004).
9whalo v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
9whalo v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
processing” and directs us to interpret the operations as “commonly understood within their ordinary meaning.” The exemption’s purpose is “to stimulate business investment in Arizona in order to improve the state’s economy and increase revenue from other taxes, such as income and property taxes.” Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 13 (2004).
Dove Mountain v. Ador Ariz. 2024
Dove Mountain v. Ador Ariz. 2024
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 10 (2004).
Mago v. Arizona Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mago v. Arizona Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 9 (2004).
Bsi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bsi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶¶ 9-10 (2004)).
Vhs v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Vhs v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Castings, Inc., ¶ 10 (2004).
Swift v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Swift v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 9 (2004).
Carter Oil v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Carter Oil v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., -48, ¶ 10 (2004) (alteration in original) (quoting W.E.
Roi v. Ford 437 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Roi v. Ford 437 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 9 (2004); see also Sempre Ltd. P’ ¶ 5 (App. 2010).
Phoenix v. Orbitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phoenix v. Orbitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 9 (2004) (quoting State ex rel.
Empire Sw. LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue 422 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bsi Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Transp. 417 P.3d 782 Ariz. 2018
Empire Sw. LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue 422 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. , , 447, ¶ 10, , 161 (2004) (citation omitted).
Bsi Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Transp. 417 P.3d 782 Ariz. 2018
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶¶ 9–10 (2004), in holding that when statutes’ “legislative intent cannot be determined, they are to be construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer.” Applying that rule, the court concluded that BSI was entitled to the discounted, nonresident tax rate in § 28-8336, later clarifying that the statutory definition
Sun Lakes v. state/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sun Lakes v. state/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 10 (2004) (citation and quotations omitted).
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 393 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Aepco v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 393 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 10
Aepco v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 10
Erik T. v. Dcs, S.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erik T. v. Dcs, S.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 9 (2004).
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 363 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 363 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 9 (2004).
Marsh v. Mayer 361 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Marsh v. Mayer 361 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 19, )).
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County 359 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County 359 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 10
General Motors Corp. v. Maricopa County 350 P.3d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
General Motors Corp. v. Maricopa County 350 P.3d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City of Apache Junction v. Doolittle 345 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City of Apache Junction v. Doolittle 345 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 19 , )).
CCI Europe, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 344 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
CCI Europe, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 344 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶8 When reviewing tax statutes, we liberally construe statutes imposing taxes in favor of taxpayers and against the government, but “strictly construe tax exemptions because they violate the policy that all taxpayers should share the common burden of taxation.” Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 10
American v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
American v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[L]aws exempting property from taxation are to be construed strictly.” see also Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 10
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arizona Dep’t of Revenue v. Capital Casings, Inc., ¶ 9