Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 42
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11005 (2026)

Suit to recover illegally levied, assessed or collected tax; refund

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided in chapter 16, article 6 of this title, within one year after payment of the first installment of tax, an action may be maintained to recover any tax that was illegally collected.

B. If the court determines that the tax due is less than the amount paid, the excess shall be refunded in the manner provided by this title with interest at the legal rate computed from the date of overpayment. For the purpose of computing interest under the judgment, if the tax was paid in installments, a pro rata share of the total overpayment is considered to be attributable to each installment.

C. The department shall be a party to any action brought pursuant to this section.

D. Any taxpayer who is dissatisfied with the valuation or classification of the taxpayer's property may appeal to court only in the time and manner prescribed in chapter 16 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Lyons v. State Bd. of Equalization, 104 P.3d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lyons v. State Bd. of Equalization, 104 P.3d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 21× “Assessor counters that exemption decisions are not subject to correction under § 42-16254 and can only be appealed to the tax court pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-11005 (1999) as an “illegal tax” after collection of that tax.”
Span v. Maricopa, 437 P.3d 881 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “He also knew that the County disagreed with his contention that the tax lien was void.”
South Point Energy Ctr., LLC v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 382 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “§ 42-16254(G) (which permits challenges to erroneously assessed taxes), and for tax years 2012 and 2013 under A.R.S. § 42-11005 (which permits recovery of illegally collected taxes).”
Citizens Telecomm. Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 75 P.3d 123 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 42-11005(A) (1999). The purpose of this requirement is to assure the government’s continued fiscal soundness.”
Roi v. Ford, 437 P.3d 890 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Taxpayers concurrently filed a petition for a refund with the Pima County Board of Supervisors, invoking a special administrative procedure provided by the charter school exemption statute. See A.R.S. § 42-11104(G) (directing that, upon petition by a qualifying nonprofit charter…”
Calpine Constr. Fin. Co. v. Arizona Depatment of Revenue, 211 P.3d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “”) § 42-11005 (2006) to obtain a refund of illegally collected taxes.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 350 P.3d 841 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 42-11005(D) (emphasis added). ¶ 13 Chapter 16 in turn provides a specific payment requirement applicable to valuation appeals.”
Frederikson v. Maricopa Cnty., 3 P.3d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Now A.R.S. § 42-11005(A). 8 . In contrast, the unextended statutory deadline allows only about eight months for filing a tax court valuation or classification appeal.”
Volunteer Ctr. of So. Az. v. Staples, Ford, Pima Co., 147 P.3d 1052 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶3 The Center paid the taxes assessed against it for the 2004 tax year but filed an action pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-11005, arguing it is entitled to a refund because the taxes were illegally collected.”
Mesquite v. Ador, No. 1 CA-JV 22-0008 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 4, 2023). · cites it 6× “260, 265, ¶ 17 (App. 2019). Nothing in the record indicates that Mesquite’s current claims would have required any additional or different evidence than that needed to prove the claims alleged in its First Action.”
South Point Energy Ctr. LLC v. Ador, No. CV-21-0130-PR (Ariz. Apr. 26, 2022). · cites it 2× “South Point does not challenge the tax assessments based on ownership of the Plant, as Calpine did in its earlier lawsuit. Instead, South Point argues that § 5 of the Act, 25 U.”
Huhtamaki v. Maricopa, No. 1 CA-IC 21-0010 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2023). · cites it 2× “382 , 386 ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (explaining arguments not raised at the superior court are waived on appeal).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11005(A): 5 cases
Span v. Maricopa, 437 P.3d 881 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “He also knew that the County disagreed with his contention that the tax lien was void.”
Citizens Telecomm. Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 75 P.3d 123 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “A.R.S. § 42-11005(A) (1999). The purpose of this requirement is to assure the government’s continued fiscal soundness.”
Lyons v. State Bd. of Equalization, 104 P.3d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “Assessor counters that exemption decisions are not subject to correction under § 42-16254 and can only be appealed to the tax court pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-11005 (1999) as an “illegal tax” after collection of that tax.”
Roi v. Ford, 437 P.3d 890 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “Taxpayers concurrently filed a petition for a refund with the Pima County Board of Supervisors, invoking a special administrative procedure provided by the charter school exemption statute. See A.R.S. § 42-11104(G) (directing that, upon petition by a qualifying nonprofit charter…”
Frederikson v. Maricopa Cnty., 3 P.3d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “Now A.R.S. § 42-11005(A). 8 . In contrast, the unextended statutory deadline allows only about eight months for filing a tax court valuation or classification appeal.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11005(D): 2 cases
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 350 P.3d 841 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “A.R.S. § 42-11005(D) (emphasis added). ¶ 13 Chapter 16 in turn provides a specific payment requirement applicable to valuation appeals.”
Burlingame Indus., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 263 P.3d 66 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
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.