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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-14005 (2026)

Appeal from valuation determined by department

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A property owner who is not satisfied with the valuation of the owner's property as determined by the department may appeal:

1. To the state board of equalization pursuant to section 42-16158.

2. Directly to superior court pursuant to section 42-16204.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: Sw. Airlines Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 175 P.3d 700 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sw. Airlines Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 175 P.3d 700 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “Contending that its avionics software was not taxable, Southwest appealed to the State Board of Equalization (the “Board”) pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-14005(1) (2006). 2 The Board declined to deduct the value of the software in setting the full cash value of Southwest’s flight…”
Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. South Point Energy Ctr., LLC, 268 P.3d 387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “In addition, permitting a taxpayer who fails to file a tax return to appeal the Department’s valuation up to four years later using the error-correction statutes, while a taxpayer who timely filed its return has only two years to appeal under A.”
Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 304 P.3d 1098 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “2 AR.S. § 42-14005 (2006). ¶ 7 The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.”
Mesquite v. Ador (Ariz. 2024). · cites it 3× “Mesquite challenged that statutory valuation in tax court under A.R.S. § 42-14005(2), relying on the income approach to * Justice Robert M.”
Burlingame Indus., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 263 P.3d 66 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 42-14005, -15104, -16056, - 16111, -16168 and -19052(B) (requiring that judicial appeals be made “pursuant to,” “as *60 provided by,” or “as prescribed” by Chapter 16).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-14005(1) — 1 case
Sw. Airlines Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 175 P.3d 700 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “Contending that its avionics software was not taxable, Southwest appealed to the State Board of Equalization (the “Board”) pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-14005(1) (2006). 2 The Board declined to deduct the value of the software in setting the full cash value of Southwest’s flight…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-14005(2) — 2 cases
Sw. Airlines Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 175 P.3d 700 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “Contending that its avionics software was not taxable, Southwest appealed to the State Board of Equalization (the “Board”) pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-14005(1) (2006). 2 The Board declined to deduct the value of the software in setting the full cash value of Southwest’s flight…”
Mesquite v. Ador (Ariz. 2024). “Mesquite challenged that statutory valuation in tax court under A.R.S. § 42-14005(2), relying on the income approach to * Justice Robert M.”
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.