Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenue
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PORTLEY, Judge.
¶ 1 Steven Karbal (“Karbal”) appeals the dismissal of his refund claim because the tax court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶ 2 Beginning March 1, 2001, Arizona imposed a transaction privilege tax on car and hotel room rentals pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 5-839 and 5-840 to fund projects sponsored by the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (“AZ-STA”). See, e.g., Long v. Napolitano, 203 Ariz. 247, 252, ¶7, 53 P.3d 172, 177 (App. 2002) (discussing taxes collected to fund…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. CunoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Maryland v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Asarco Inc. v. KadishSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- General Motors Corp. v. TracySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. OkunCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- CCI Europe, Inc. v. Arizona Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- Saban v. AdorCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018
- Arizona City Sanitary District v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.