Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095 (2026)
Definitions. [Renumbered as
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1986–2019 · leading case: Heller v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 314 P.3d 69 (Alaska 2013).
Heller v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 314 P.3d 69 (Alaska 2013). “2d 621, 625 (Alaska 1993) (stating that the purpose of the subsection of AS 43.23.095 defining state residency in the PFD context is “to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents”).”
Church v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125 (Alaska 1999). “175(c)(6), which denies PFDs to seasonal residents; was not beyond the authority of the commissioner to promulgate and that the regulation was consistent with the purpose of AS 43.23.095(8), which is “to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents.”
State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1993). “The commissioner argues that the regulation in question adds a permissible gloss to the statutory phrase "intent to remain permanently in the state," AS 43.23.095(8). The commissioner cites Whaley v.”
Handley v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 838 P.2d 1231 (Alaska 1992). “Second, he contends that the definition of "state resident" in AS 43.23.095(8) is overbroad and violates equal protection.”
Brodigan v. Alaska Dep't of Revenue, 900 P.2d 728 (Alaska 1995). “Discretionary Allowable Absence The Department found that the Bro-digans were not absent for any of the rea *733 sons specifically allowed in AS 43.23.095 and 15 AAC 23.150 (1989). 11 Therefore, it considered whether the Brodigans satisfied 15 AAC 23.”
Jones v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 441 P.3d 966 (Alaska 2019). “Former AS 43.23.095, the definitional statute in place at the time of the Joneses' PFD applications and appeals, was renumbered as AS 43.”
Schikora v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 7 P.3d 938 (Alaska 2000). “" 11 Schikora does not dispute that his reasons for being absent in 1992 and 1993 do not qualify as allowable absences under subparagraphs (A)-(G) of former AS 43.23.095(8) or its implementing regulations.”
State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Bradley, 896 P.2d 237 (Alaska 1995). “at 624 ; see AS 43.23.095(8). In upholding the regulation, we stated that one of the objectives of AS 43.”
Eldridge v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 988 P.2d 101 (Alaska 1999). “State, in which we held that neither AS 43.23.095(8) nor 15 AAC 23.163(c) violates the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution.”
State, Dep't of Revenue v. Gazaway, 793 P.2d 1025 (Alaska 1990). “The children waived any objection to an alleged unconstitutionality of AS 43.23.095, by failing to raise the issue before the administrative tribunal or the superior court.”
Anderson v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 26 P.3d 1106 (Alaska 2001). “Former AS 43.23.095(8) (1997) established the "intent to return' requirement for eligible residents absent from the state.”
Ross v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 292 P.3d 906 (Alaska 2012). “095(8), the statute defining allowable absences included seven categories of allowable absences, plus an eighth subpart "allow[ing] for excusable absences for other reasons which the [Department of Revenue] commissioner may establish by regulation.”
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(6) — 2 cases
Heller v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 314 P.3d 69 (Alaska 2013). “2d 621, 625 (Alaska 1993) (stating that the purpose of the subsection of AS 43.23.095 defining state residency in the PFD context is “to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents”).”
Tea ex rel. A.T., 278 P.3d 1262 (Alaska 2012).
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(7) — 3 cases
Heller v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 314 P.3d 69 (Alaska 2013). “2d 621, 625 (Alaska 1993) (stating that the purpose of the subsection of AS 43.23.095 defining state residency in the PFD context is “to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents”).”
Jones v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 441 P.3d 966 (Alaska 2019). “Former AS 43.23.095, the definitional statute in place at the time of the Joneses' PFD applications and appeals, was renumbered as AS 43.”
Beattie Through Beattie v. United States, 635 F. Supp. 481 (D. Alaska 1986).
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(7)(B) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Revenue v. Gazaway, 793 P.2d 1025 (Alaska 1990). “The children waived any objection to an alleged unconstitutionality of AS 43.23.095, by failing to raise the issue before the administrative tribunal or the superior court.”
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(8) — 12 cases
Heller v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 314 P.3d 69 (Alaska 2013). “2d 621, 625 (Alaska 1993) (stating that the purpose of the subsection of AS 43.23.095 defining state residency in the PFD context is “to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents”).”
Church v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125 (Alaska 1999). “175(c)(6), which denies PFDs to seasonal residents; was not beyond the authority of the commissioner to promulgate and that the regulation was consistent with the purpose of AS 43.23.095(8), which is “to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents.”
State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1993). “The commissioner argues that the regulation in question adds a permissible gloss to the statutory phrase "intent to remain permanently in the state," AS 43.23.095(8). The commissioner cites Whaley v.”
Handley v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 838 P.2d 1231 (Alaska 1992). “Second, he contends that the definition of "state resident" in AS 43.23.095(8) is overbroad and violates equal protection.”
Schikora v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 7 P.3d 938 (Alaska 2000). “" 11 Schikora does not dispute that his reasons for being absent in 1992 and 1993 do not qualify as allowable absences under subparagraphs (A)-(G) of former AS 43.23.095(8) or its implementing regulations.”
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(8)(A) — 2 cases
Church v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125 (Alaska 1999). “175(c)(6), which denies PFDs to seasonal residents; was not beyond the authority of the commissioner to promulgate and that the regulation was consistent with the purpose of AS 43.23.095(8), which is “to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents.”
Eldridge v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 988 P.2d 101 (Alaska 1999). “State, in which we held that neither AS 43.23.095(8) nor 15 AAC 23.163(c) violates the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution.”
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(8)(B) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Bradley, 896 P.2d 237 (Alaska 1995). “at 624 ; see AS 43.23.095(8). In upholding the regulation, we stated that one of the objectives of AS 43.”
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(8)(C) — 2 cases
State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Wilder, 929 P.2d 1280 (Alaska 1997).
State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Hale, 978 P.2d 1276 (Alaska 1999).
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(8)(D) — 1 case
Brodigan v. Alaska Dep't of Revenue, 900 P.2d 728 (Alaska 1995). “Discretionary Allowable Absence The Department found that the Bro-digans were not absent for any of the rea *733 sons specifically allowed in AS 43.23.095 and 15 AAC 23.150 (1989). 11 Therefore, it considered whether the Brodigans satisfied 15 AAC 23.”
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(8)(F) — 1 case
Brodigan v. Alaska Dep't of Revenue, 900 P.2d 728 (Alaska 1995). “Discretionary Allowable Absence The Department found that the Bro-digans were not absent for any of the rea *733 sons specifically allowed in AS 43.23.095 and 15 AAC 23.150 (1989). 11 Therefore, it considered whether the Brodigans satisfied 15 AAC 23.”
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(8)(H) — 1 case
Church v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125 (Alaska 1999). “175(c)(6), which denies PFDs to seasonal residents; was not beyond the authority of the commissioner to promulgate and that the regulation was consistent with the purpose of AS 43.23.095(8), which is “to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents.”
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(8)(H)(I) — 1 case
Church v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125 (Alaska 1999). “175(c)(6), which denies PFDs to seasonal residents; was not beyond the authority of the commissioner to promulgate and that the regulation was consistent with the purpose of AS 43.23.095(8), which is “to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents.”
— Alaska Stat. § 43.23.095(a) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1993). “The commissioner argues that the regulation in question adds a permissible gloss to the statutory phrase "intent to remain permanently in the state," AS 43.23.095(8). The commissioner cites Whaley v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.