A. Subject to subsection B of this section, the department shall:
1. Prescribe guidelines for applying standard appraisal methods and techniques that shall be used by the department and county assessors in determining the valuation of property.
2. Prepare and maintain manuals and other necessary guidelines, consistent with this section, reflecting the standard methods and techniques to perpetuate a current inventory of taxable property and the valuation of that property.
B. Before they are adopted, the department shall submit each substantive proposed guideline, table and manual that is developed, amended or otherwise modified from and after December 31, 2006 to the joint legislative oversight committee on property tax assessment and appeals. The department shall not finally adopt, amend or otherwise modify a substantive guideline, table or manual for at least thirty days after submitting the measure to the committee. The committee may hold one or more informational hearings on the proposed measure within thirty days after submission. In adopting, amending or modifying the measure the department shall consider the committee's comments. If the committee fails to hold a hearing within thirty days after submission, the department may adopt, amend or modify the measure without further consideration.
C. In applying prescribed standard appraisal methods and techniques:
1. Current usage shall be included in the formula for reaching a determination of full cash value.
2. Solar energy devices, as defined in section 44-1761, grid-tied photovoltaic systems and any other device or system designed to produce solar energy primarily for on-site consumption are considered to add no value to the property on which such a device or system is installed.
3. If characterized as personal property, subject to any applicable constitutional exemption from taxation, solar energy devices, as defined in section 44-1761, grid-tied photovoltaic systems and any other device or system designed to produce solar energy primarily for on-site consumption shall be valued as provided in section 42-13056.
4. Energy efficient building components, renewable energy equipment and combined heat and power systems are considered to add no value to the property, if the property owner provides the county assessor with documentation of all elements that qualify pursuant to this paragraph, including documents showing actual acquisition and installation costs. The documentation must be submitted to the county assessor not later than six months before the notice of full cash value is issued for the initial evaluation year pursuant to section 42-15101 or, if the component is added after September 30 of the preceding year, not later than March 31 of the initial valuation year. For the purposes of this paragraph:
(a) "Combined heat and power system" means a system that generates electricity or mechanical power and useful thermal energy in a single, integrated system such that the useful power output of the facility plus one-half the useful thermal output during any twelve-month period is not less than 42.5 percent of the total energy input of fuel to the facility.
(b) "Energy efficient building components" means high performance sustainable building components installed so that the buildings or building components meet or exceed the energy efficiencies prescribed by the United States environmental protection agency energy star program or by a leadership in energy and environmental design green building rating standard developed by the United States green building council, or an equivalent green building standard, or that are at least fifteen percent more energy efficient than the international energy conservation code in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
(c) "Renewable energy equipment" means equipment that is used to produce energy primarily for on-site consumption from renewable resources, including wind, forest thinnings, agricultural waste, biogas, biomass, geothermal, low-impact hydropower and solar energy not included under paragraph 2 of this subsection.
D. If the methods and techniques prescribe using market data as an indication of market value, the price paid for future anticipated property value increments shall be excluded.
E. For the purposes of determining full cash value the department and county assessors shall use and apply the ratio standard guidelines issued by the department for tax year 1993 in the same manner as they were applied in tax year 1993. This subsection does not apply to property that is valued according to prescribed statutory methods or to property for which values are determined in the year after an appeal pursuant to section 42-16002.
Notes of Decisions
Solarcity Corp. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 413 P.3d 678 (Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 23× “And because § 42-14151(A) does not apply, the valuation method set forth in § 42-14155(A) for renewable energy equipment is likewise inapplicable. Thus, we affirm the tax court's ruling that neither § 42-14151 nor § 42-14155 authorizes ADOR to centrally assess and tax Taxpayers'…”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Miller Park, L.L.C., 164 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 42-11054(0(1) (Supp.2006). The legislature has also directed that “[i]f the methods and techniques prescribe using market data as an indication of market value, the price paid for future anticipated property increments shall be excluded.”
Krausz v. Maricopa Cnty., 28 P.3d 335 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “section 42-11054(B) controls the timing of the determination of the relevant use, but it does not require that the tenant’s use of the property, rather than the landlord’s, be the applicable “use” for purposes of classification .”
100 Val Vista/Montgomery LLC v. Pinal Cnty., 445 P.3d 7 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Both parties agree that Rancho Asueno is composed of noncontiguous parcels, including the Property, and that to obtain agricultural classification, the Property must make a functional contribution to the agricultural use of Rancho Asueno. ¶16 The statute does not define…”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Imp. & Power Dist. v. Miller Park, LLC, 183 P.3d 497 (Ariz. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2d 216, 221 (1979) (discussing limitation on full cash value in A.R.S. § 42-11054(C)-(D) (Supp.2007)). ¶ 12 Because of the difference in valuation standards, tax assessments are generally inadmissible to show the value of property for purposes of just compensation.”
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. Am. SUPPORT, 100 P.3d 932 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 42-11054(A)(1). The legislature has also required that "[i]n applying prescribed standard appraisal methods and techniques, current usage shall be included in the formula for reaching a determination of full cash value.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Miller Park, L.L.C., 183 P.3d 497 (Ariz. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2d 216, 221 (1979) (discussing limitation on full cash value in A.R.S. § 42-11054(C)-(D) (Supp.2007)). ¶ 12 Because of the difference in valuation standards, tax assessments are generally inadmissible to show the value of property for purposes of just compensation.”
Mesquite v. Ador (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 10× “[t]he valuation of real property improvements used in operating the facility, .”
Qasimyar v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “A.R.S. §§ 42-11054(A)–(B), -13051(B)(2); see Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11054(A) — 3 cases
Solarcity Corp. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 413 P.3d 678 (Ariz. 2018).
“And because § 42-14151(A) does not apply, the valuation method set forth in § 42-14155(A) for renewable energy equipment is likewise inapplicable. Thus, we affirm the tax court's ruling that neither § 42-14151 nor § 42-14155 authorizes ADOR to centrally assess and tax Taxpayers'…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11054(A)(1) — 5 cases
Solarcity Corp. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 413 P.3d 678 (Ariz. 2018).
“And because § 42-14151(A) does not apply, the valuation method set forth in § 42-14155(A) for renewable energy equipment is likewise inapplicable. Thus, we affirm the tax court's ruling that neither § 42-14151 nor § 42-14155 authorizes ADOR to centrally assess and tax Taxpayers'…”
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. Am. SUPPORT, 100 P.3d 932 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“A.R.S. § 42-11054(A)(1). The legislature has also required that "[i]n applying prescribed standard appraisal methods and techniques, current usage shall be included in the formula for reaching a determination of full cash value.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11054(A)(2) — 1 case
100 Val Vista/Montgomery LLC v. Pinal Cnty., 445 P.3d 7 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“Both parties agree that Rancho Asueno is composed of noncontiguous parcels, including the Property, and that to obtain agricultural classification, the Property must make a functional contribution to the agricultural use of Rancho Asueno. ¶16 The statute does not define…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11054(B) — 3 cases
Krausz v. Maricopa Cnty., 28 P.3d 335 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“section 42-11054(B) controls the timing of the determination of the relevant use, but it does not require that the tenant’s use of the property, rather than the landlord’s, be the applicable “use” for purposes of classification .”
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. Am. SUPPORT, 100 P.3d 932 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“A.R.S. § 42-11054(A)(1). The legislature has also required that "[i]n applying prescribed standard appraisal methods and techniques, current usage shall be included in the formula for reaching a determination of full cash value.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11054(B)(1999) — 1 case
Krausz v. Maricopa Cnty., 28 P.3d 335 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“section 42-11054(B) controls the timing of the determination of the relevant use, but it does not require that the tenant’s use of the property, rather than the landlord’s, be the applicable “use” for purposes of classification .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11054(C) — 2 cases
Salt River Proj. Agric. Imp. & Power Dist. v. Miller Park, LLC, 183 P.3d 497 (Ariz. 2008).
“2d 216, 221 (1979) (discussing limitation on full cash value in A.R.S. § 42-11054(C)-(D) (Supp.2007)). ¶ 12 Because of the difference in valuation standards, tax assessments are generally inadmissible to show the value of property for purposes of just compensation.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Miller Park, L.L.C., 183 P.3d 497 (Ariz. 2008).
“2d 216, 221 (1979) (discussing limitation on full cash value in A.R.S. § 42-11054(C)-(D) (Supp.2007)). ¶ 12 Because of the difference in valuation standards, tax assessments are generally inadmissible to show the value of property for purposes of just compensation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11054(C)(1) — 5 cases
Mesquite v. Ador (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“[t]he valuation of real property improvements used in operating the facility, .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11054(C)(2) — 2 cases
Solarcity Corp. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 413 P.3d 678 (Ariz. 2018).
“And because § 42-14151(A) does not apply, the valuation method set forth in § 42-14155(A) for renewable energy equipment is likewise inapplicable. Thus, we affirm the tax court's ruling that neither § 42-14151 nor § 42-14155 authorizes ADOR to centrally assess and tax Taxpayers'…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-11054(D) — 1 case
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Miller Park, L.L.C., 164 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“” A.R.S. § 42-11054(0(1) (Supp.2006). The legislature has also directed that “[i]f the methods and techniques prescribe using market data as an indication of market value, the price paid for future anticipated property increments shall be excluded.”
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.