871 P.2d 1178 (Ariz.Tax 1994), TX 93-00826, First Interstate Bank of Arizona v. State Dept. of Revenue

Docket Nº:TX 93-00826.
Citation:871 P.2d 1178, 178 Ariz. 242
Party Name:FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF ARIZONA v. STATE of Arizona DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al.
Case Date:March 18, 1994
Court:Tax Court of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1178

871 P.2d 1178 (Ariz.Tax 1994)

178 Ariz. 242

FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF ARIZONA

v.

STATE of Arizona DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al.

No. TX 93-00826.

Tax Court of Arizona.

March 18, 1994

John F. Munger, Tucson, for plaintiff.

Pima County Atty. by Peter E. Pearman, Tucson, for defendant Pima County.

Attorney Gen. by Michael F. Kempner, Phoenix, for defendant State.

OPINION

SCHAFER, Judge.

First Interstate Bank of Arizona is licensed to do banking business in Arizona and

Page 1179

[178 Ariz. 243] it has over 40 branch offices in this state. For tax year 1992, the Pima County Assessor taxed all of the bank's personal property as unsecured property. The bank paid the tax but protested, claiming that the property should have been taxed as secured property and because it was not, the bank should get back all the taxes it paid. The Assessor (and the Arizona Department of Revenue) claims it made no mistake; A.R.S. § 42-222 requires a taxpayer to give the Assessor a list of its property, real and personal, and A.R.S. § 42-601 says that if a taxpayer owns less than $200 in real property, its personal property goes onto the unsecured tax roll. This taxpayer, the Assessor says, did not list any real property on its section 42-222 list, and thus, for tax purposes, did not, to the Assessor's knowledge, own real property worth more than $200. The bank counters it did own real property and it was worth much more than $200. The issue, then, is whether the Assessor properly placed the personal property on the unsecured list.

First Interstate filed a combined special action and complaint. The Court dismissed the special action and ruled that the case would continue as an appeal (complaint). Each side then filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, First Interstate argued a number of things: the property should not have been placed on the unsecured roll; the defendants did not follow section 42-221(B) (which sets a deadline for the assessor to determine what property is subject to taxation) and thus it deprived plaintiff of certain appeal rights; plaintiff was denied the equal protection of the laws; plaintiff was required to pay its taxes prematurely and is entitled to the "lost time value" of the taxes it paid; plaintiff is entitled to a full refund because of the defendants' illegal conduct; and, plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees. The County's motion...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP