Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court
|
|
- Reginald Johnson
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DIVISION 1 COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF AR.IZONA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE FILED AUG3 0 Z005 CABEZON CABLE OF ARIZONA, INC., an Arizona corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, an agency of the State of Arizona, Defendant-Appellee. 1 CA-TX DEPARTMENT T MEMORANDUMDECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedur Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court Cause No. TX The Honorable Paul A. Katz, Judge AFFIRMED Fennemore By Attorneys Craig Steven R. Partridge Paul J. Mooney for Plaintiff-Appellant Phoenix Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Lisa A. Neuville, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Phoenix HAL L, Judge 9[1 This is an appeal from a grant of partial summary judgment and a trial on stipulated facts. Cabezon Cable of Arizona, Inc. (Taxpayer challenges the tax court's rulings that it was engaged in prime contracting and did not qualify as an exempt
2 subcontractor for purposes of the Arizona transaction privilege tax, Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. section (1999. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the tax court's judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Between January 1993 and April 1996, Taxpayer installed cable television services in new developments and performed service repairs. The relevant governmental enti ties granted easements allowing Taxpayer and utilities to place their lines. 9[3 All cable lines Taxpayer serviced were in trenches or buried underground. The trenches holding the cable lines were multi-use trenches and also housed other utility lines, including those for electricity and telephones. In a new development, Taxpayer would typically place the conduit in trenches previously excavated by the developer, pull the cable through the conduit, set the pedestals,1 and activate the electronics. Taxpayer also spliced the cables, which entailed hooking up the electronics to the cable. In addition, Taxpayer would dig trenches or potholes to repair broken conduit or cable, or to access tap boxes (also called dog boxes where the main feeder trunk carne in. Because the 1 A pedestal is a box, ranging between six and eighteen inches wide and between six and twenty-four inches tall, which stores the electronics. There is a pedestal at every other house in a development with cable spanning the distance between the pedestals. 2
3 devel'oper or utility contractor could only excavate within a certain distance from the utility connection, Taxpayer would have to dig the rest of the way to reach the tap box. Taxpayer would also dig trenches ten to fifty feet long for line extensions when a developer forgot a location. On occasion, Taxpayer installed tap boxes in the ground that could be accessed via a manhole cover. 9[5 At times, Taxpayer would trench through asphalt and bored holes if a contractor had not completed a trench because of a preexisting sidewalk. On occasion, Taxpayer would provide a backhoe and operator to the cable company, usually to dig potholes. Taxpayer would subcontract aerial work and hand-digging in asphal t. 9[6 When a cable company needed to upgrade its wiring, Taxpayer would replace the old pedestal with a new one, replace and splice the cable, and change out the pedestal's electronics. Taxpayer's contracts with the cable companies provided that Taxpayer's foreman would supervise Taxpayer's contract activities, and that Taxpayer's project manager would be responsib~e for the contract work's progress. 9[7 The Arizona Department of Revenue (the Department or ADOR issued an assessment for transaction privilege tax on Taxpayer's contracting income on December 18, 1998 for $204,318.71, together with interest and penal ties. Taxpayer unsuccessfully appealed to the State Board of Tax Appeals, and then brought a 3
4 comp~~int in Arizona Tax Court pursuant to A.R.S (Supp [8 The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether (1 Taxpayer was engaged in prime contracting, and (2 Taxpayer was acting as an exempt subcontractor. The tax court ruled in the Department's favor as to the first issue, and requested additional facts concerning the second issue. The parties complied by issuing a Stipulated Statement of Facts and presenting oral arguments. The tax court resolved the second issue in the Department's favor and entered judgment. 9[9 Taxpayer timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A. R. S (B ( DISCUSSION 9[10 On appeal, Taxpayer contends that the trial court erred by finding it is a contractor and prime contractor because: (1 it merely acts as an agent of the cable companies, assisting in the assembly of their cable systems, and (2 its acti vi ty is limited to the "manufacturing of tangible personal property,u a non-taxable activity. Alternatively, Taxpayer also argues that even if it is a prime contractor, the trial court erred by finding it is not an exempt subcontractor. 9[11 We review the tax court's grant of partial suitutiary judgment de novo. Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 182 Ariz. 196, 198, 895 P.2d 108, 110 (1995. When the material facts 4
5 are undisputed, we must determine whether the tax court correctly applied the substantive law to those facts. S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 202 Ariz. 326, , ~ 7,44 P.3d 1006, (App Questions of statutory interpretation are issues of law also subject to de novo review. Walls v. Ariz. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 170 Ariz. 591, 594, 826 P.2d 1217, 1220 (App I. As a Matter of Law, Taxpayer Engaged in Contracting for Purposes of [12 The transaction privilege tax is akin to.a business privilege tax on the gross receipts from the taxable acti vi ty. A.R.S (Supp. 2004; see S. Pac. Transp., 202 Ariz. at 333, ~ 25, 44 P.3d at Businesses engaged in prime contracting are subj ect to the transaction pri vi lege tax. See A.R.S (A (1 (b (Supp To qualify as a pn.me contractor for transaction privilege tax purposes, Taxpayer's activities must fall under the statutory definition of "contracting." In Arizona, contracting means "engaging in business as a contractor." A.R.S (G (1 (2000 (retroactively effective to Dec. 31,1993 [now codified at A.R.S (K (1 (Supp. 2004]. A "contractor" is synonymous with the term "builder" and means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization, or a combination of any of them, that undertakes to or offers to undertake to, or purports to have the capacity to undertake to, or submits a bid 5
6 to, or does personally or by or through others, construct, alter, repair, add to, subtract from, improve, move, wreck or demolish any building, highway, road, railroad, excavation, manufactured building or other structure, project, development or improvement, or to do any part of such a project, including the erection of scaffolding or other structure or works in connection with such a project, and includes subcontractors and specialty contractors. For all purposes of taxation or deduction, this definition shall govern without regard to whether or not such contractor is acting in fulfillment of a contract. A.R.S (G (2 (2000 [now codified at (K (2]. 91:13 First, Taxpayer claims it is not subject to the transaction privilege tax because it is a "service business," a subset of businesses not delineated in A.R.S to (Supp As support for this argument, Taxpayer relies on Arizona State Tax Commission v. Parsons-Jurden Corp., 9 Ariz.App. 92, 449 P.2d 626 (1969. That case concerned whether the taxpayer was making taxable retail sales to the Duval Corporation or whether it was merely providing a procurement service and purchasing materials as Duval's agent. Id. at 92, 449 P.2d at 626. The retail classification covers the business of selling tangible personal property at retail. A.R.S (Supp (general transaction privilege statute [formerly A.R.S ], -5061{A (Supp (retail classification statute. The classification specifically exempts professional or personal service occupations. A.R.S {A (I. In contrast, the 6
7 prime' contracting classification expressly includes services such as alteration, repair, and movement. A.R.S (G (6 (1999 [now A. R.S (K (6 (Supp. 2004]. Whether Taxpayer provided labor or services is not at issue; the issue is whether its activities fell within the broad definition of contracting. 9[14 Second, Taxpayer maintains that it does not engage in contracting because its "manufacture of personal property" does not qualify as an improvement to real property. Taxpayer cites Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Outdoor Advertisers, Inc., 202 Ariz. 93, 41 P.3d 631 (App. 2002, as support, but its reliance upon that case is misplaced. 9[15 The Arizona Outdoor taxpayer contested the imposition of the transaction privilege tax under A.R.S (F (2 (1999 on business income generated by leasing the use of real property for consideration. Id. at 95, ~ 10, 41 P.3d at 633. The pivotal issue was whether billboards located on real property became fixtures and part of the realty once erected or remained personalty. Id. If they were personalty, the taxpayer would not be liable for the transaction privilege tax under (F (2. Id. The Department contended that the billboards constituted improvements to real property under (F (2, which defines real property to include "improvements, rights or interest in such property. " Id. 7
8 ~16 Applying a reasonable person test, this court held that the billboards were personalty. rd. at 100, 102, S[S[38, 51, 41 P.3d at 638, 640. We reasoned that the lease agreements "unequivocally declare that [taxpayer].would remain the owner of the billboards, and the agreements grant [taxpayer] the right to remove the billboards without any significant event occurring(.] " rd. at 101, S[ 43, 41 P.3d at 639. We therefore affirmed the ruling that the taxpayer was not liable for the transaction privilege tax. rd. at 102, S[ 51, 41 P.3d at 640. ~17 Taxpayer appears to argue that, like the billboards, the cable equipment remained the personalty of the cable companies and thus does not subject Taxpayer to liability under This logic is flawed. Taxpayer simply constructed the cable system, and is not the lessor, owner, or provider of cable television. Thus, Taxpayer is one step removed from the analysis of whether installed cable equipment becomes a fixture or remains personalty. ~18 A case discussed in Arizona Outdoor, Brink Electric Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, 184 Ariz. 354, 909 P.2d 421 (App. 1995, deals with the more relevant issue whether contracting extends to the business of installing electrical transmission equipment. The taxpayer furni shed and installed portable electrical transmission equipment at two substations for an electrical provider. rd. at , 909 P.2d at The taxpayer maintained that it was not in the business of 8
9 contracting and not subject to the transaction privilege tax because it did not permanently attach or affix equipment to real property. Id. at 360, 9a9 P.2d at :19 We relied upon a similar case from the South Dakota Supreme Court, also involving the taxpayer and analyzing its liability for taxes on gross receipts from realty improvement contracts. Id. at 361, 909 P.2d at 428 (analyzing Brink Elec. Constr. Co. v. S. Dakota Dep't of Revenue, 472 N.W.2d 493 (S.D. 1991».2 Applying a precursor of the reasonable person test, we analyzed whether the installation of electrical transmission equipment qualified as an improvement to real property. Id. The controlling factor for both Brink courts was "whether the party intends to make the article a permanent accession to the realty." Id. While permanency was also required, we did not equate it with perpetuity. Id. "It is sufficient if the item is intended to remain where affixed until worn out, until the purpose to which the :realty is dev0ted is accomplished or until the item is superseded by another itern more sui table for the purpose." Id. (quoting Brink, 472 N.W.2d at Other factors included the article '.s actual or constructive annexation to the realty and its 2 Although Arizona law did not incorporate the phrase "realty improvement contract," we found that the definition in A.R.S (16 [renumbered as and amended by 1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 150, 87, 99, eff. Jan. 1, 1999] fully subsumed the concept of "realty improvement." Brink, 184 Ariz. at 361, 909 P.2d at
10 adaptability to the use and purpose for which the realty is used. rd. 9[20 We noted that the equipment the taxpayer supplied was clearly intended to remain where installed "until the purpose to which the realty is devoted is accomplished." rd. at 362, 909 P.2d at 429. In the context of taxpayer's overall Arizona work, we found that it "improved the realty for electrical transmission purposes," and.t.husthe taxpayer "engaged in the business of contracting when it installed this equipment, and is subject to the tax on contracting." rd. at , 909 P.2d at [21 As in Brink, Taxpayer failed to establish that the cable equipment installed is not a permanent accession to realty. Even though Taxpayer points.out that digging accounted for less than two percent of its activity, Taxpayer's "overall work" of installing the cable system is analogous to Brink's improvement of the realty for electrical transmission purposes. Like the e~ectrical equipment, the cable systems..ins.talled by Taxpayer are clearly intended to remain where installed until the purpose to which the realty is devoted is accomplished. Accordingly, Taxpayer "engaged in the business of contracting" for purposes of Arizona's transaction privilege tax. 9[22 As pointed out by the Department, Taxpayer's reliance upon cases from other jurisdictions is misplaced because those cases apply statutes that do not deal with a tax on the business of 10
11 contracting similar to See Cont'1 Cablevision of Michigan, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 425 N.W.2d 53 (Mich (applying fixture analysis to determine whether the cable company was liable for the personal property tax on the value of house drops that the cable company had installed; Capital Dist. Better TV Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of State of New York, 606 N.Y.S.2d 930 (App. Div (construing the same exemption to the statute that imposed a sales tax on the services of installing tangible personal property--a trunk distribution system--except for property that would become a capital improvement to real property when installedi Glenville Cablesystems Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 531 N.Y.S.2d 137 (App. Div (declining to apply the exemption from retail sales tax for capital improvements, which the statute defined similarly to fixtures, for the taxpayer's antennas, supporting structures, signal-processing equipment, distribution plants on utility poles, and subscriber connections. 9[23 Moreover, Taxpayer meets the contracting definition because its work involved adding to or subtracting from an excavation. A majority of the work involved installation of cable service facili ties in new developments. It is sufficient that Taxpayer did only part of the project. Thus, Taxpayer qualifies as a contractor and not a manufacturer as it contends. 11
12 II. Taxpayer Was a Taxable Prime Contractor and Not Covered By the Subcontracting Exemption 91:24 The seminal case on the prime contracting issue is Granite Construction Co. v. State ex rei. Arizona Department of Revenue, 168 Ariz. 93, 811 P.2d 345 (App The taxpayer, Granite Construction Company, was a mine reclamation contractor for Peabody Coal Company (Peabody, a mining company. Id. at 94, 811 P.2d at 346. Peabody strip-mines coal on Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservation land pursuant to leases with those nations. Id. In accordance with federal law, Peabody contracted with the taxpayer to reclaim strip-mined areas. Id. 91:25 After auditing the taxpayer's activities between 1980 and 1985, the Department determined that taxpayer engaged in prime contracting and assessed additional privilege taxes on taxpayer's gross receipts from Peabody for its reclamation services. Id. at 96-97, 811 P.2d at This court looked to the prime contracting and prime contractor definitions in the former A.R.S (2 (i [now codified at A.R.S (K (5, (6 (Supp. 2004]: (16 "Prime contracting" means engaging in business as a prime contractor. (17 "Prime contractor" means the contractor who supervises, performs or coordinates the construction, alteration, repair, addition, subtraction, improvement, movement, wreckage or demolition of any building, highway, road, railroad, excavation or other structure, project, development or improvement including 12
13 the contracting, if any, with any subcontractors or specialty contractors and is responsible for the completion of the contract. Id. at , 811 P.2d at (citing A.R.S (2(i(16, (17. In addition, this court considered the taxpayer's argument that it was exempt from tax as a subcontractor under former A.R.S (2 (i: Subcontractors or others who perform services in respect to any improvement, building, highway, rc&d, railroad, 2xcavation or other structure, proj ect, development or improvement shall not be subject to such tax if they can demonstrate that the job was within the control of a prime contractor or prime contractors and that such prime contractor is liable for such tax upon the gross income, gross proceeds of sale or gross receipts attributable to the job and from which the subcontractors or others were paid. Id. at 101, 811 P.2d at 353. Thus, the subcontractor exemption requires that (1 the job was within the control of a prime contractor or prime contractors;3 and (2 the prime contractor is liahle for such tax upon the gros.s income, gross proceeds of sale or gross receipts attributable to the job and from which the subcontractors or others were paid. 3 A contractor is presumed to be a prime contractor and taxable on its contracting receipts unless the contractor can prove that it is a subcontractor. See A.A.C. R (C ("[E]very person engaging in a contracting activity is considered to be a prime contractor unless it can be demonstrated [] that he is not a prime contractor['j"' 13
14 9[26 " The Granite Construction court found that neither requirement was satisfied. Id. at , 811 P.2d at For purposes of that case, we construed the statutory reference to "the contractu to be the contract between a prime contractor and another that requires the prime contractor to supervise, perform or coordinate the contracting activities referred to in the statute for that other party. Id. at 101, 811 P.2d at 353. We found that '\Pt=!~bQdvis, a lessee leasing lands from the Navaj 0 and Hopi tribes U and "Peabody mines and sells the coal on its own account.u Id. Because Peabody did not perform any of the statutorily designated (i.e., reclamation services for the tribe, it could not be considered a prime contractor, and consequently the taxpayer could not be a subcontractor. Id. 9[27 The same logic applies here. The cable companies received a license from the municipalities to construct a cable television system, which was analogous to Peabody's lease of land from the tribes. Taxpayer 00fltr-clctecwith the cable compani~s to construct the cable system. Therefore, Taxpayer is the prime contractor supervising, performing or coordinating the contracting activities. 9[28 Taxpayer also cannot succeed on the alternate theory that the cable companies are the prime contractors and Taxpayer is the exempt subcontractor. The only relationship between the cable companies and the municipalities is a license permitting 14
15 construction of the cable television system. Like the Grani te Construction lease allowing, but not requiring, the mining of coal, the license does not contractually mandate the cable companies to construct a cable system.4 Moreover, the cable companies ultimately receive income from the sale of cable television which, like Peabody's sale of coal from its mining operations, the cable companies do on their own account, apart from the license with the municipalities. 9[29 Taxpayer also cannot support the argument that the cable companies were liable for transaction privilege taxes on gross income. In Granite Construction, we explained that the job consisted of reclamation activities to restore strip-mined land. rd. Although the job was clearly within Peabody's control, "it is clear that any transaction privilege taxes for which Peabody was liable were not paid on gross income 'attributable to the job., within the meaning of A.R.S (2 (i " rd. Taxpayer argues that the municipalities and cable companies must be in a contractual relationship because the license authorizes the municipalities to recover liquidated damages from those companies for untimely work. The nature of these entities' relationship is regulatory, not contractual. The license granted is "revocable" and "non-exclusive." Government entities regulate various utilities, and may grant utility companies easements that allow the companies to place their lines and impose monetary penalties. See Phoenix City Code 5-2(d. This authority does not translate into a contract of hiring utility companies to put in place the utili ty systems that they operate. Utilities are independent from the government and provide services for their own profit and benefit. 15
16 ., J 9[30 Likewise, the cable companies were not liable for transaction privilege taxes on the gross income "attributable to the job" from which Taxpayer was paid. The cable companies receive gross income for the sale of cable television access, which is analogous to the coal sales in Granite Construction. They do not receive gross income for the installation of the cable system; accordingly, Taxpayer is solely liable for the transaction.._,.k. p~ivilege _._..... taxes attributable to that function. 9[31 Nonetheless, Taxpayer contends that there are several sources of income relating to contracting activity o~t of which Taxpayer is paid. Taxpayer asserts that "[the cable company derives gross receipts from a variety of sources" including a "monthly fee for service" and an "installation fee or connection charge to a new customer." 9[32 This argument misses the point of the second requirement of the subcontractor exemption. The exemption requires "gross proceeds of sale or gross receipts ettributable to the job and from which the subcontractors or others were paid." Grani te Cons tr., 168 Ariz. at 101, 811 P.2d at 353. The "job" refers to Taxpayer's installation of the cable television system. The record is devoid of facts relating to Taxpayer's "job" with new customer installations. In fact, Taxpayer concedes that it cannot "trace the source of income, by dollar, from payment by a customer to payment to Cabezon(.]" Consequently, Taxpayer's installation of the 16
17 cable system fails to meet the second statutory prerequisite for eligibility under the subcontractor exemption. CONCLUSION 9[33 Taxpayer engaged in prime contracting within the meaning of the Arizona transaction privilege statutes and does not qualify as an exempt subcontractor. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgmen t to the Department, and deny Taxpayer's reques t for attorneys' fees Qn.appe~l. CONCURRING:. 17
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090 CERTIFIED MAIL [redacted] The Director's Review of the Decision ) O R D E R of the Administrative Law Judge Regarding: ) ) [redacted]
More informationBy: Pat Derdenger, Partner Steptoe & Johnson LLP 201 East Washington Street, 16 th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382
ARIZONA TAX: PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES ARE THEY TAXABLE UNDER THE PRIME CONTRACTING CLASSIFICATION OF THE ARIZONA TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX OR NOT? (HOUSE BILL 2622 ANSWERS THE QUESTION) By: Pat Derdenger,
More informationARIZONA SALES TAXATION OF CONTRACTING
ARIZONA SALES TAXATION OF CONTRACTING By Patrick Derdenger Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP 201 E. Washington Street, 16 th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 (602) 257-5209 e-mail: pderdenger@steptoe.com
More informationHUB PROPERTIES TRUST, a Maryland Real estate investment trust, Plaintiff/Appellant,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CITY OF PEORIA, a municipal corporation; and CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation, v. Plaintiffs/Defendants/ Appellees, BRINK S HOME SECURITY,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc PEOPLE'S CHOICE TV CORPORATION, ) Arizona Supreme Court INC., a Delaware corporation, ) No. CV-01-0156-PR ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Court of Appeals ) Division One v. ) No.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc CITY OF PEORIA, a municipal ) Arizona Supreme Court corporation; and CITY OF PHOENIX, ) No. CV-10-0218-PR a municipal corporation, ) ) Court of Appeals Plaintiffs/Defendants/
More informationBy: Pat Derdenger, Partner Steptoe & Johnson LLP 201 East Washington Street, 16 th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382. Sub
ARIZONA TAX: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND THE ORMOND CASE; THE COURT OF APPEALS FINALLY ANSWERS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS A PRIME CONTRACTOR SUBJECT TO THE ARIZONA TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE
More informationWells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property and Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 799 P.2d 908, 165 Ariz. 567 (Ariz. App., 1990)
Page 908 799 P.2d 908 165 Ariz. 567 WELLS FARGO CREDIT CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, Defendant- Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090 Janice K. Brewer Governor
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090 Janice K. Brewer Governor CERTIFIED MAIL [redacted] John A. Greene Director The Director's Review of the Decision ) O R D E
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Janice K. Brewer Governor PRIVATE TAXPAYER RULING LR13-002 John A. Greene Director The Department issues this private taxpayer ruling in response to your letters
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION by TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL December 22, 2006 No. I06-008 (R06-034) Re: The Application of Proposition 203, the Arizona Early
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue ARIZONA TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX NOTICE Janice K. Brewer Governor David Raber Director NOTE: This document addresses various questions and provides examples involving
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090 Janet Napolitano Governor CERTIFIED MAIL Gale Garriott Director The Director's Review of the Decision ) O R D E R of the Administrative
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090 Janet Napolitano Governor CERTIFIED MAIL [redacted] Gale Garriott Director The Director's Review of the Decision ) O R D E R
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., : Petitioner : : No. 266 F.R. 2008 v. : : Argued: May 15, 2013 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI,
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE GARY GERVICH, Deceased and ) No. ED94726 DEBORAH GERVICH, ) ) Appeal from the Labor and Appellant, ) Industrial Relations Commission ) vs.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court. Cause No.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE FREELANCE INTERPRETING SERVICES, INC., v. Plaintiff/Appellant, STATE OF ARIZONA, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, Defendant/Appellee. 1 CA-TX 05-0005
More informationBEFORE THE APPEALS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF WASHINGTON. ) No. 15-0026... ) ) Registration No...
Det. No. 15-0026, 34 WTD 373 (August 31, 2015) 373 Cite as Det. No. 15-0026, 34 WTD 373 (2015) BEFORE THE APPEALS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Petition for Refund
More informationCOMPANY, INC. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF v. : NEW BRITAIN COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
NO. CV 01 0506140S : SUPERIOR COURT RENAISSANCE MANAGEMENT : TAX SESSION COMPANY, INC. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF v. : NEW BRITAIN COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS EDWIN HOLLENBECK and BRENDA HOLLENBECK, UNPUBLISHED June 30, 2011 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 297900 Ingham Circuit Court FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE LC No. 09-000166-CK
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION September 6, 2005 9:00 a.m. v No. 251798 Washtenaw Circuit Court GAYLA L. HUGHES, LC No. 03-000511-AV
More informationARIZONA CIVIL COURT TX 2004-000487 03/28/2005 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG
HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT C.I. Miller Deputy FILED: ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE EDWINUS M VANVIANEN v. RCM BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC, et al. WILLIAM M KING UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
More informationbefore the Tribunal. Commissioner Robert J. Firestone did not participate in this Decision.
New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal -----------------------------------------------------------------x : In the Matter of : : DECISION ASSOCIATED BUSINESS TELEPHONE : SYSTEMS CORPORATION : TAT (E) 93-1053(UT)
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION by TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL September 6, 2006 No. I06-003 (R06-024) Re: Amending Contracts of Certain School Employees to
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REVENUE RULING # 04-20 WARNING
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REVENUE RULING # 04-20 WARNING Revenue rulings are not binding on the Department. This presentation of the ruling in a redacted form is information only. Rulings are made
More informationJUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061304 June 8, 2007. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Michael P. McWeeney, Judge
PRESENT: ALL THE JUSTICES MARK FIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC., TO THE USE OF AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE CO. OPINION BY JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061304 June 8, 2007 CASTLE CONTRACTORS, ET AL. FROM
More informationAZDOR the Company s transaction privilege taxes.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA In re ) Chapter ) THERESA ANN INSELMAN, ) CASE NO. :0-0-RJH ) ) OPINION RE RESPONSIBLE ) PERSON LIABILITY FOR Debtor.
More informationIN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER: MARK J. RICHARDS ICE MILLER LLP Indianapolis, IN ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: GREGORY F. ZOELLER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA ANDREW W. SWAIN CHIEF COUNSEL, TAX SECTION JESSICA E.
More informationTHE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
2014 UT App 258 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS TOTAL RESTORATION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. VERNON MERRITT AND SANDRA MERRITT, Defendants and Appellants. Opinion No. 20120785-CA Filed October 30, 2014
More informationIN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-1486 In the Matter of the Removal of the Franklin
More informationIn re the Marriage of: SUSAN MARIE TRASK, Petitioner/Appellant, WADE MARTIN HANDLEY, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0543 FC
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DALE GABARA, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 19, 2006 v No. 262603 Sanilac Circuit Court KERRY D. GENTRY, and LINDA L. GENTRY, LC No. 04-029750-CZ
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA ) ) 1 CA-CR 01-0226 Appellant, ) ) DEPARTMENT C v. ) ) O P I N I O N ALBERTO ROBERT CABRERA, ) ) Filed 4-23-02 Appellee.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA ) ) 1 CA-CR 01-0226 Appellant, ) ) DEPARTMENT C v. ) ) O P I N I O N ALBERTO ROBERT CABRERA, ) ) Filed 4-23-02 Appellee. ) ) Appeal
More informationMARCELLO ARBIZO III, Petitioner/Appellee, AMANDA SHANK, Respondent/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0166 Filed September 18, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO MARCELLO ARBIZO III, Petitioner/Appellee, v. AMANDA SHANK, Respondent/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0166 Filed September 18, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION by TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL No. I03-009 (R03-016) Re: Arizona Board of Nursing Jurisdiction over Licensees Who Practice Exclusively
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
FIRST DIVISION PHIPPS, C. J., ELLINGTON, P. J., and MCMILLIAN, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LETTER RULING # 02-37 WARNING
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LETTER RULING # 02-37 WARNING Letter rulings are binding on the Department only with respect to the individual taxpayer being addressed in the ruling. This presentation
More informationChapter 24 CABLE TELEVISION* Article I. In General. Article II. Board Created. Article III. Operations
Chapter 24 CABLE TELEVISION* Article I. In General Sec. 24-1. Establishment and purpose. Sec. 24-2. Definitions. Sec. 24-3. Franchise required. Sec. 24-4. Franchise contract. Sec. 24-5. Public hearing.
More informationIN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationCITY OF CLEVELAND LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1099
[Cite as Cleveland v. Laborers Internatl. Union Local 1099, 2009-Ohio-6313.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92983 CITY OF CLEVELAND
More informationMotor Freight & Transportation Charges - Taxable
MIKE KILGO & ASSOCIATES, INC. STATE OF ALABAMA 3118 30 TH AVENUE E. ALABAMA TAX TRIBUNAL TUSCALOOSA, AL 35404-4988, DOCKET NO. S. 14-1060 Taxpayer, v. STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. FINAL ORDER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CAROLYN M. TRIER Trier Law Office Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: BRENT E. INABNIT CHRISTOPHER M. KEEFER Sopko, Nussbaum, Inabnit & Kaczmarek South Bend,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondent, APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner/Appellant, HON. CHARLES SHIPMAN, Judge of the Green Valley Justice Court, in and of the County of Pima, v. and THOMAS
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CALVERT BAIL BOND AGENCY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION March 10, 2016 9:00 a.m. v No. 324824 St. Clair Circuit Court COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR, LC No. 13-002205-CZ
More informationSUMMARY. Jan 30, 2001. Re: Technical Assistance Advisement 01A-009 Sales and Use Tax -- Security Systems Sections 212.05, 212.06, F.S.
SUMMARY QUESTION: Are contracts who install security and alarm systems contracts for real property improvements or sales of tangible personal property? ANSWER - Based on Facts Below: Contracts who furnish
More informationCOMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : FEBRUARY 20, 2004 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : FEBRUARY 20, 2004 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
NO CV 03 0519616S LAURA A. GAVIGAN, ET AL. : SUPERIOR COURT : TAX SESSION v. : NEW BRITAIN COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : FEBRUARY 20, 2004 NO CV 03 0519924S DENNIS M. GAVIGAN : SUPERIOR COURT : TAX
More informationSHAWNTELLE ALLEN, Plaintiff/Appellant, SCF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; RALPH MORRIS, Defendanst/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0058
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Hignite v. Glick, Layman & Assoc., Inc., 2011-Ohio-1698.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95782 DIANNE HIGNITE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-03-0250-PR ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Court of Appeals ) Division One v. ) Nos.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER LEROY GONZALES, Appellant. 1 CA-CR 02-0971 DEPARTMENT D O P I N I O N Filed 12-2-03 Appeal from the Superior
More informationAndrew A. Smigelski d/b/a Columbia Roofing & Home Improvement v. Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois, No. 52, September Term, 2007
Andrew A. Smigelski d/b/a Columbia Roofing & Home Improvement v. Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois, No. 52, September Term, 2007 HEADNOTE: WORKERS COMPENSATION - Where an insurance policy excludes
More informationSTATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
ST 09-1 Tax Type: Issue: Sales Tax Bad Debt Write-Off STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ABC, INC., ) Docket No. 07-ST-0000 Taxpayer ) Claim Periods
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division II Opinion by JUDGE TERRY Casebolt and Furman, JJ., concur. Announced June 10, 2010
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA0830 Arapahoe County District Court No. 08CV1981 Honorable Michael Spear, Judge Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
More information2015 SENATE BILL 503
0 0 LEGISLATURE 0 SENATE BILL 0 January, 0 Introduced by Senators MARKLEIN, GUDEX, OLSEN and ROTH, cosponsored by Representatives MACCO, KOOYENGA, KATSMA, JARCHOW, NOVAK, TAUCHEN, DUCHOW, KNODL, E. BROOKS,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE. In re the Marriage of: ) No. 1 CA-CV 10-0535 )
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationCONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS, OWNER BUILDERS AND SPECULATIVE BUILDERS
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS, OWNER BUILDERS AND SPECULATIVE BUILDERS This publication is for general information about the Transaction Privilege (Sales) Tax on contracting activities. It contains excerpts
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, v. JAMES EARL CHRISTIAN, Appellee. Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-02-0233-PR Court of Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-CR 00-0654 Maricopa County Superior
More informationIn re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, v. GREG ROLAND SMITH, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014 Appeal from
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0177P (6th Cir.) File Name: 04a0177p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ONE S TRAVEL LTD, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 6, 2010 9:10 a.m. v No. 287254 Court of Claims MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 07-86-MT Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCHAPTER 111 ELECTRIC FRANCHISE. 111.01 Franchise Granted 111.02 Regulatory Power of City
CHAPTER 111 111.01 Franchise Granted 111.02 Regulatory Power of City 111.01 FRANCHISE GRANTED. MidAmerican Energy Company, a corporation, its successors or assigns are hereby granted and vested with the
More informationSTATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
UT 02-2 Tax Type: Issue: Use Tax Use Tax On Aircraft Purchase STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
More informationBEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF ALAMO TRUE VALUE HOME CENTER TO ASSESSMENT ISSUED UNDER LETTER ID NO. L1733458560
More informationWashington Unit DECISION ON APPEAL
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Vermont Department of Taxes, No. 709-11-14 Wncv (Teachout, J., June 30, 2015) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from
More informationBEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF DLORAH, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY No. 02-31 ID NO. 02-180159-00
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE SALVATORE BALESTRIERI, ) 1 CA-CV 12-0089 ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) DEPARTMENT C ) v. ) O P I N I O N ) DAVID A. BALESTRIERI, ) ) Defendant/Appellee.
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE FULTON HOMES CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation; FULTON HOME SALES CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation, as successor in interest through merger to
More informationCITY OF TUCSON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0099 Filed January 5, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO QWEST CORPORATION, DBA CENTURYLINK-QC, A COLORADO CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF TUCSON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CENTENNIAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, v. Plaintiff/Appellant, LAWYER S TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellee.
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Janice K. Brewer Governor TAXPAYER INFORMATION RULING LR11-011 Gale Garriott Director The Department issues this taxpayer information ruling in response to your letter
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. IN THE COURT
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140355-U NO. 5-14-0355 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 05/12/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th) 140355-U NO. 5-14-0355
More informationNo. 2 10 0182 Order filed February 15, 2011 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
Order filed February 15, 2011 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). IN
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO CASUALTY RESTORATION SERVICES, LLC, vs. Plaintiff-Appellee, MICHELLE JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant, MICHELLE JENKINS, vs. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationNo. 2 CA-CV 2014-0086 Filed January 21, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE $170.00 U.S. CURRENCY; 2012 HARLEY DAVIDSON MOTORCYCLE, REG. AZ/JGMC3Z No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0086 Filed January 21, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL
More informationMAINE REVENUE SERVICES SALES, FUEL & SPECIAL TAX DIVISION INSTRUCTIONAL BULLETIN NO. 56
MAINE REVENUE SERVICES SALES, FUEL & SPECIAL TAX DIVISION INSTRUCTIONAL BULLETIN NO. 56 TELECOMMUNICATIONS This bulletin is intended solely as advice to assist persons in determining and complying with
More informationPetitioner, Associated Business Telephone Systems Corporation ( ABTS ), filed a New York City ( City ) Department of Finance
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION : : In the Matter of the Petition : : DETERMINATION of : : TAT(H) 93-1053(UT) ASSOCIATED BUSINESS TELEPHONE : SYSTEMS CORPORATION :
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION September 13, 2012 9:00 a.m. v No. 304708 Oakland Circuit Court CONNIE LEE PENNEBAKER, LC No. 2011-235701-FH
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ROY MATTHEW SOVINE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0094
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationNO. 3-10-0040WC. January 25, 2011 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT. Workers' Compensation Commission Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23 (e(1. NO. 3-10-0040WC January 25, 2011
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Paul T. Fulkerson Skiles Detrude Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE, DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL OF INDIANA Donald B. Kite, Sr. Wuertz Law Office, LLC Indianapolis, Indiana
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CHARLES EDWARD REINHARDT, Petitioner. 1 CA-CR 02-1003PR DEPARTMENT C OPINION Filed 6-29-04 Appeal from the Superior
More informationPART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 50 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS ARTICLE II. CABLE TELEVISION
Sec. 50-19. Purpose and scope of article. Sec. 50-20. Definitions. Sec. 50-21. Cable television advisory board. Sec. 50-22. Franchise Required. Sec. 50-23. Same Granting of application; revocation of.
More informationMichigan surplus lines premium tax -- liability of group self-insurance basis I. BACKGROUND
Declaratory Ruling 90-10919-M Michigan surplus lines premium tax -- liability of group self-insurance basis March 23, 1990 A. The Requests for a Declaratory Ruling I. BACKGROUND The Middle Cities Risk
More information[Cite as Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Wilkins, 101 Ohio St.3d 112, 2004-Ohio- 296.]
[Cite as Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Wilkins, 101 Ohio St.3d 112, 2004-Ohio- 296.] COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT, v. WILKINS, TAX COMMR., ET AL., APPELLEES.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TRENT THOMPSON Salem, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: REBECCA J. MAAS KYLE B. DEHAVEN Smith Fisher Maas & Howard, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
More informationpurchased by the taxpayer, who is a resident of Illinois, and the taxpayer has not shown
UT 10-07 Tax Type: Issue: Use Tax Private Vehicle Use Tax - Nonresident STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE
More informationTRANSPORTATION CODE TITLE 6. ROADWAYS SUBTITLE I. TRANSPORTATION CORPORATIONS CHAPTER 431. TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION ACT
TRANSPORTATION CODE TITLE 6. ROADWAYS SUBTITLE I. TRANSPORTATION CORPORATIONS CHAPTER 431. TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION ACT SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 431.001. SHORT TITLE. This chapter
More informationArizona. Note: Current to March 19, 2015
Note: Current to March 19, 2015 Arizona Unauthorized Practice of Law & Who may practice as an attorney: (NOTE: Arizona does not have an Unauthorized Practice of Law Statute. The Unauthorized Practice of
More informationINTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Index No.: 115.02-00. Number: 199923029 Release Date: 6/11/1999. CC:DOM:FI&P:1 - PLR-116624-98 March 11, 1999 LEGEND:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Index No.: 115.02-00 Number: 199923029 Release Date: 6/11/1999 CC:DOM:FI&P:1 - PLR-116624-98 March 11, 1999 LEGEND: Authority = State A = Year 1 = County = Date 1 = Program = Date
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO CITY OF CINCINNATI EX REL. JOSEPH D. ZIMMER, and Relator-Appellant, CITY OF CINCINNATI EX REL. ANTHONY BRICE, vs. Relator,
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 1043. September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1043 September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS v. GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL. Eyler, Deborah S., Woodward, McAuliffe, John F. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned),
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 28, 2012
[Cite as City of Columbus, Div. of Taxation v. Moses, 2012-Ohio-6199.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT City of Columbus, Division of Taxation, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 12AP-266
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA All Staffing, Inc., : Petitioner : : No. 325 F.R. 2006 v. : : Argued: June 23, 2010 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE
More informationsaid subcontractor initiates his work.
68 1701. Definitions. As used in Sections 1701 through 1707 of this title: 1. "Contractor" includes all prime and general contractors, subcontractors, independent contractors and persons engaged in contract
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
More information