Cited by

See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10 (2008) (noting that this Court “avoid[s] interpretations that render statutory provisions meaningless, unnecessary, or duplicative”); (explaining when interpreting a provision, “each word, phrase, clause[,] and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be vo

See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10 (2008); Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016).

See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10 (2008) (“We .

When interpreting related provisions, we construe them in a way that gives effect to all provisions involved; we avoid interpretations that render provisions “meaningless, unnecessary, or duplicative.” Arizona Dep’t ¶ 10 (2008); ¶ 25 (2021) (“We also avoid interpreting a statute in a way that renders portions superfluous.”).

Indeed, if the Commission was already exempt from the APA, specific exemptions such as § 41-1057(A)(2) would be meaningless.2 See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10 (2008) (“We .

Ariz. Dep’t ¶¶ 23-36 (2023) (quoting Ariz. Dep’t )).

Ariz. Dep’t –40 ¶¶ 23–36 (2023) (Bolick, J., concurring joined by Beene, J., Montgomery, J., and King, J.) (quoting Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 10 (2008)).

Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 2 (2023) (quoting Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 6 (2008)).

See Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 10 (2008).

See Vangilder, 252 Ariz. at 487 ¶ 22 (“[This Court] avoid[s] interpretations that render statutory provisions meaningless, unnecessary, or duplicative.” (quoting Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10 (2008))).

VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, Opinion of the Court: ¶1 This case follows in the wake of Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., –47 ¶¶ 28–29 (2008), which interpreted A.R.S.

Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., -46, ¶¶ 22-23 (2008) (citation omitted).

See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10 (2008) (“We .

[It] is not a sales tax, but rather is a tax on the gross receipts of a person or entity engaged in business activities.” See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 6 (2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also MCTC § 400 (broadly imposing privilege taxes); ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (noting that transaction privilege taxes, as compared to sales taxes, are levied on gross receipts rather than individual sales and on business pr

Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10 (2008) (stating that courts do not interpret statutes in a way that makes provisions meaningless).

Comm’n, ¶ 10, (citing Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10, ) (appellate courts should not interpret statutes such that statutory words or phrases are meaningless, unnecessary, or duplicative) (quotation omitted).

Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10

Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10, ¶ 13, (statutory provisions are construed in context with related provisions and in light of their place in the statutory scheme).

See Ariz. Dep’t of Rev. v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10 , (“We construe related statutes together, and avoid interpretations that render statutory provisions meaningless, unnecessary, or duplicative.”) (internal citations omitted).

shall not remit less than the amount so collected to the [Arizona Department of Revenue].” See also Ariz. Dept. of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., (noting taxpayers are not required to collect transaction privilege tax from customers).

See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., (advising against interpretations that render statutory words or phrases “meaningless, unnecessary, or duplicative”).

See Arizona Dep’t , 143 ¶ 10, (noting that this court will not construe text to render any of its terms meaningless).

VJA cites Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., , vacated ¶¶ 28, 31 , -94 (2008), for the proposition that we review "[t]he denial of a new trial following the grant of summary judgment ...

Id.; see also Ariz. Dep’t. of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10

(the transaction privilege tax is imposed on gross revenues instead of on individual transactions); Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., 218 Ariz. *68 141, 142, ¶ 7, (“The liability for TPT falls on the taxpayer, not on the taxpayer’s customers.”) (citing AR.S.