Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301 (2026)

Designating military reuse zone; term; renewal

✓ current as of May 2026

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

42-1301. Designating military reuse zone; term; renewal

A. After executing a lease with a term of fifteen years or longer for the use or occupancy of real property or improvements that are located on a closed military facility with a runway that is at least eight thousand feet long at closing or after title to any part of a closed military facility with a runway that is at least eight thousand feet long at closing is transferred to this state or to another public or private entity, the governor, after consulting with the director, may designate the property as a military reuse zone. Only properties that were used for operational and training purposes of the active uniformed services of the United States qualify for consideration as a military reuse zone.

B. The governor shall set a termination date for the military reuse zone that is not more than ten years after the date the zone is designated. During the last year before termination the governor may renew the military reuse zone for one term of ten years. Thereafter, the legislature and the governor by joint resolution may renew the military reuse zone for additional ten-year terms.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases, 1958–2001 · leading case: Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 556 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 556 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 12× “The State Tax Commission held that the total gross proceeds received by Mountain Bell for the sale of the system and the lease of the switcher were taxable under the transaction privilege and education excise taxes, A.R.S. § 42-1301, et seq., § 42-1361, et seq.”

SDC Mgmt., Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 808 P.2d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 32× “At all times relevant to this litigation, A.R.S. § 42-1301 provided, in pertinent part: 2.”

State Tax Comm'n v. Consumers Mkt., Inc., 351 P.2d 654 (Ariz. 1960). · cites it 22× “On appeal it is the Commission's position that the "exchange" of trading stamps for the items of merchandise in question is a taxable retail sale under the Transaction Privilege Taxes Act, A.R.S. § 42-1301 et seq. The position of the plaintiff below, as set forth in its…”

State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., 928 P.2d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 11× “It argues this was error, because “mere social interaction is far removed from the notion of business as a commercial enterprise.”

Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev., 644 P.2d 905 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “The terms “contracting” and “contractor” are defined in A.R.S. § 42-1301(3) and (4) as follows: 3.”

City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “There are many analogies to the state transaction privilege tax act, A.R.S. § 42-1301 et seq., and to Prescott’s subsequently enacted transaction privilege tax code, § 4-1-1 et seq.”

State Tax Comm'n v. Ryan-Evans Drug Stores, 357 P.2d 607 (Ariz. 1960). · cites it 11× “1939, now A.R.S. § 42-1301 et seq., against appellee on the theory that the transaction constituted retail sales within the scope of the Act.”

Dennis Dev. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 595 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 8× “” The terms “contracting” and “contractor” are defined in A.R.S. § 42-1301 as follows: “(2) ‘Contracting’ means engaging in business as a contractor.”

Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 402 P.2d 423 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 9× “The action turns on the determination of the taxability of certain acts or transactions of the plaintiff taxpayer.”

State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Chastain Builders, Inc., 669 P.2d 1017 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 22× “The State further notes that the words “contracting,” “contractor,” and “subcontractor” are specifically defined in A.R.S. § 42-1301 as follows: 2. “Contracting” means engaging in business as a contractor.”

State Tax Comm'n v. Murray Co. of Texas, Inc., 350 P.2d 674 (Ariz. 1960). · cites it 11× “29 paid by plaintiff-appellee under protest following an additional assessment against it by the Commission in the above amount as and for a transaction privilege tax as provided for under the provisions of A.R.S. § 42-1301 et seq. The parties will hereinafter be designated as…”

Ebasco Servs. Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 459 P.2d 719 (Ariz. 1969). · cites it 5× ““Gross income” is defined by ARS § 42-1301, subsec. 6 to mean “the GROSS RECEIPTS of a taxpayer * Unfortunately, the statute does not adequately define the term, GROSS RECEIPTS.”

Show all 69 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(1) — 11 cases

Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 556 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. 1976). “The State Tax Commission held that the total gross proceeds received by Mountain Bell for the sale of the system and the lease of the switcher were taxable under the transaction privilege and education excise taxes, A.R.S. § 42-1301, et seq., § 42-1361, et seq.”

State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., 928 P.2d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “It argues this was error, because “mere social interaction is far removed from the notion of business as a commercial enterprise.”

City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “There are many analogies to the state transaction privilege tax act, A.R.S. § 42-1301 et seq., and to Prescott’s subsequently enacted transaction privilege tax code, § 4-1-1 et seq.”

Dep't of Revenue v. Moki Mac River Expeditions, Inc., 773 P.2d 474 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

Carriage Trade Mgmt. Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 557 P.2d 183 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(11) — 3 cases

New Cornelia Coop. Mercantile Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 533 P.2d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).

ARIZ. S. TAX COMM. v. Sw. Kenworth, Inc., 561 P.2d 757 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).

People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson, 20 P.3d 1151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(13) — 2 cases

Motorola, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 993 P.2d 1101 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Daniel, 938 P.2d 62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(14) — 2 cases

State v. Angelo, 800 P.2d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Control Data Corp., 641 P.2d 1296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(17) — 1 case

Granite Constr. Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 811 P.2d 345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(19) — 1 case

State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Control Data Corp., 641 P.2d 1296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(2) — 6 cases

Tempe Life Care Vill., Inc. v. City of Tempe, 714 P.2d 434 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

Dennis Dev. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 595 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “” The terms “contracting” and “contractor” are defined in A.R.S. § 42-1301 as follows: “(2) ‘Contracting’ means engaging in business as a contractor.”

Rowe Int'l, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 796 P.2d 924 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

SDC Mgmt., Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 808 P.2d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “At all times relevant to this litigation, A.R.S. § 42-1301 provided, in pertinent part: 2.”

Bodco Bldg. Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 429 P.2d 476 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(20) — 2 cases

Rowe Int'l, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 796 P.2d 924 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Control Data Corp., 641 P.2d 1296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(21) — 2 cases

Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 822 P.2d 498 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).

McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith, 645 P.2d 821 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(24) — 1 case

McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith, 645 P.2d 821 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(3) — 5 cases

SDC Mgmt., Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 808 P.2d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “At all times relevant to this litigation, A.R.S. § 42-1301 provided, in pertinent part: 2.”

Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev., 644 P.2d 905 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The terms “contracting” and “contractor” are defined in A.R.S. § 42-1301(3) and (4) as follows: 3.”

State Tax Comm'n v. Holmes & Narver, Inc., 548 P.2d 1162 (Ariz. 1976).

Granite Constr. Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 811 P.2d 345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(4) — 7 cases

Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev., 644 P.2d 905 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The terms “contracting” and “contractor” are defined in A.R.S. § 42-1301(3) and (4) as follows: 3.”

City of Phoenix v. Santa Anita Dev. Corp., 685 P.2d 1331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

In the Matter of the Lusk Corp., Debtors v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 462 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1972).

SDC Mgmt., Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 808 P.2d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “At all times relevant to this litigation, A.R.S. § 42-1301 provided, in pertinent part: 2.”

State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Chastain Builders, Inc., 669 P.2d 1017 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “The State further notes that the words “contracting,” “contractor,” and “subcontractor” are specifically defined in A.R.S. § 42-1301 as follows: 2. “Contracting” means engaging in business as a contractor.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(5) — 6 cases

SDC Mgmt., Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 808 P.2d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “At all times relevant to this litigation, A.R.S. § 42-1301 provided, in pertinent part: 2.”

Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 938 P.2d 474 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

Watkins Cigarette Serv., Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 517 P.2d 1089 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(6) — 4 cases

State Tax Comm'n v. Ryan-Evans Drug Stores, 357 P.2d 607 (Ariz. 1960). “1939, now A.R.S. § 42-1301 et seq., against appellee on the theory that the transaction constituted retail sales within the scope of the Act.”

New Cornelia Coop. Mercantile Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 533 P.2d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).

Watkins Cigarette Serv., Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 517 P.2d 1089 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).

Watkins Cigarette Serv., Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 526 P.2d 708 (Ariz. 1974).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(7) — 4 cases

Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev., 644 P.2d 905 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The terms “contracting” and “contractor” are defined in A.R.S. § 42-1301(3) and (4) as follows: 3.”

Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 822 P.2d 498 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).

Kitchell Contractors, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 726 P.2d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(8) — 1 case

State v. Angelo, 800 P.2d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1301(9) — 2 cases

SDC Mgmt., Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 808 P.2d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “At all times relevant to this litigation, A.R.S. § 42-1301 provided, in pertinent part: 2.”

RDB Thomas Road P'ship v. City of Phoenix, 883 P.2d 431 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

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.