873 P.2d 1314 (Ariz.Tax 1994), TX 92-00974, Kabuto Intern. Phoenix, Inc. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue

Docket Nº:TX 92-00974.
Citation:873 P.2d 1314, 178 Ariz. 392
Party Name:KABUTO INTERNATIONAL PHOENIX, INC. v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; Maricopa County.
Case Date:May 03, 1994
Court:Tax Court of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1314

873 P.2d 1314 (Ariz.Tax 1994)

178 Ariz. 392

KABUTO INTERNATIONAL PHOENIX, INC.

v.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; Maricopa County.

No. TX 92-00974.

Tax Court of Arizona.

May 3, 1994

John A. Swain, Phoenix, for plaintiff.

Michael L. Kempner, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Helm & Kyle by John D. Helm, Tempe, for defendant.

Page 1315

[178 Ariz. 393]

OPINION

SCHAFER, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether a "counterclaim" by a county under A.R.S. § 42-178 is an independent action that may stand on its own when the tax valuation appeal to which it was made is dismissed.

The taxpayer, Kabuto International Phoenix, Inc., owner of the Wigwam Inn, filed this appeal challenging the assessments on its hotel and golf course properties. Maricopa County and the Arizona Department of Revenue answered the appeal, contending that the assessments were correct. Maricopa County also contended that the statute regulating the valuation of golf courses, A.R.S. § 42-146, was unconstitutional. A few weeks later, at the prompting of the parties, the Court issued what amounted to an advisory minute entry informing the parties that it felt section 42-146 was unconstitutional. The County then asked the Court to continue this case on the inactive calendar. Kabuto opposed that and asked that the case be dismissed under Rule 41 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The County then moved to amend the answer to the appeal to allow it to counterclaim for an increase in the assessor's valuation (A.R.S. § 42-178).

The Court continued the case on the inactive calendar and denied Kabuto's motion to dismiss under Rule 41. It did not, however, rule on the County's motion to amend the answer. Kabuto then filed a "Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice." It noted that its earlier motion to dismiss did not request that the dismissal be with prejudice and, to clear up any misconception about that prior motion, it was now moving again for dismissal, with prejudice, and also moving to amend the earlier motion to clarify that it too requested a dismissal with prejudice. To make its point even clearer, a week later Kabuto filed a "Notice Of Withdrawal Of Plaintiff's Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice" asking the Court to rule on one of its requests for dismissal. The County (and the Department) opposes dismissal. Its most cogent argument is bound up with its motion to amend--if that motion is granted, then...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP