Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 42

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009

Class nine property

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. For purposes of taxation, class nine is established consisting of:

1. Improvements that are located on federal, state, county or municipal property and owned by the lessee of the property if:

(a) The improvements are required to become the property of the federal, state, county or municipal owner of the property on termination of the leasehold interest in the property.

(b) Both the improvements and the property are used exclusively for convention activities or athletic, recreational, entertainment, artistic or cultural facilities.

2. Improvements that are located on federal, state, county or municipal property and owned by the lessee of the property if:

(a) The improvements are required to become the property of the federal, state, county or municipal owner of the property on termination of the leasehold interest in the property.

(b) Both the improvements and the property are:

(i) Used for or in connection with aviation, including hangars, tie-downs, aircraft maintenance, sales of aviation-related items, charter and rental activities, parking facilities and restaurants, stores and other services located in a terminal.

(ii) Located on a state, county, city or town airport or a public airport operating pursuant to sections 28-8423, 28-8424 and 28-8425.

3. Property that is defined as "contractor-acquired property" or "government-furnished property" in the federal acquisition regulations (48 Code of Federal Regulations section 45.101) and that is leased to or acquired by the government and used to perform a government contract.

4. Property of a corporation that is organized by or at the direction of this state or a county, city or town to develop, construct, improve, repair, replace or own any property, improvement, building or other facility to be used for public purposes that the state, county, city or town pledges to lease or lease-purchase with state, county or municipal special or general revenues and that is not otherwise exempt under chapter 11, article 3 of this title.

5. Real property and improvements, including land, buildings, furniture and equipment, regardless of ownership, that are leased for the entire valuation year to, and used exclusively by, a nonprofit organization that is recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code and that operates on the premises as either a charter school pursuant to section 15-183 or a residential treatment and education facility or that are leased for the entire valuation year to, and used exclusively by, a nonprofit church, religious assembly or religious institution.  If only part of a parcel of real property or improvements to real property, including land, buildings, furniture and equipment, is leased for operation of a charter school or residential treatment and education facility or a church, religious assembly or religious institution as provided by this paragraph, only the portion so leased qualifies for classification under this section. A property owner that leases property to a charter school or residential treatment and education facility or a church, religious assembly or religious institution as provided by this paragraph shall file an affidavit with the county assessor stating that the charter school or residential treatment and education facility or the church, religious assembly or religious institution shall be the sole beneficiary of the change in property tax classification pursuant to this section and that the lease rate that is charged to the charter school or residential treatment and education facility or the church, religious assembly or religious institution is consistent with the lease rates that are charged to other tenants of the property or a fair market rate.

6. Real property and improvements, including land, buildings, furniture and equipment, regardless of ownership, that are leased for the entire valuation year to, and used exclusively by, a United States veterans' organization that qualifies as a charitable organization and that is recognized under section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(19) of the internal revenue code and that operates the United States veterans' organization's post on the premises. If only part of a parcel of real property or improvements to real property, including land, buildings, furniture and equipment, is leased for operation of a United States veterans' organization as provided by this paragraph, only the portion so leased qualifies for classification under this section. A property owner that leases property to a United States veterans' organization as provided by this paragraph shall file an affidavit with the county assessor stating that the United States veterans' organization shall be the sole beneficiary of the change in property tax classification pursuant to this section and that the lease rate that is charged to the United States veterans' organization is consistent with the lease rates that are charged to other tenants of the property or a fair market rate.

B. Improvements that are located in an area defined as a research park pursuant to section 35-701 may not be classified under this section.

C. All property classified as class nine is subject to valuation at full cash value.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2010–2015 · leading case: CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2012) ariz · cites it 17× “It held “that § 42-12009 requires the existence of a demonstrable reversionary interest at the time of taxation,” id.”
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp · cites it 49× “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, Taxpayer contends that A.R.S. § 42-12009 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer because it is a statute imposing a tax liability.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp · cites it 13× “The County’s interpretation is also inconsistent with legislative history, which reflects an intent to encourage certain types of private development on public land, including convention-related facilities.”
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County (2015) arizctapp · cites it 5× “Under § 42-12009, Class Nine property was assessed at one percent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009(A) — 1 case
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, Taxpayer contends that A.R.S. § 42-12009 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer because it is a statute imposing a tax liability.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009(A)(1) — 1 case
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, Taxpayer contends that A.R.S. § 42-12009 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer because it is a statute imposing a tax liability.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009(A)(1)(a) — 3 cases
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2012) ariz “It held “that § 42-12009 requires the existence of a demonstrable reversionary interest at the time of taxation,” id.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp “The County’s interpretation is also inconsistent with legislative history, which reflects an intent to encourage certain types of private development on public land, including convention-related facilities.”
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, Taxpayer contends that A.R.S. § 42-12009 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer because it is a statute imposing a tax liability.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009(A)(1)(b) — 3 cases
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, Taxpayer contends that A.R.S. § 42-12009 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer because it is a statute imposing a tax liability.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2012) ariz “It held “that § 42-12009 requires the existence of a demonstrable reversionary interest at the time of taxation,” id.”
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County (2015) arizctapp “Under § 42-12009, Class Nine property was assessed at one percent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009(A)(2)(b)(i) — 1 case
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, Taxpayer contends that A.R.S. § 42-12009 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer because it is a statute imposing a tax liability.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009(A)(5) — 1 case
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, Taxpayer contends that A.R.S. § 42-12009 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer because it is a statute imposing a tax liability.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009(A)(6)(b) — 1 case
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, Taxpayer contends that A.R.S. § 42-12009 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer because it is a statute imposing a tax liability.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009(A)(l)(a) — 1 case
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2012) ariz “It held “that § 42-12009 requires the existence of a demonstrable reversionary interest at the time of taxation,” id.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-12009(A)(l)(b) — 3 cases
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County (2015) arizctapp “Under § 42-12009, Class Nine property was assessed at one percent.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp “The County’s interpretation is also inconsistent with legislative history, which reflects an intent to encourage certain types of private development on public land, including convention-related facilities.”
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, Taxpayer contends that A.R.S. § 42-12009 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer because it is a statute imposing a tax liability.”
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.