A. The county assessor or county treasurer, whichever is appropriate, shall make the necessary changes in the tax roll and records to reflect the determinations that change valuations or classifications of property that result from reviews, administrative or judicial appeals or correction of errors and omissions under this title.
B. If a review or administrative appeal pursuant to article 2, 3 or 4 of this chapter or a judicial appeal pursuant to article 5 of this chapter results in a reduction of the valuation or a change in the classification of property, in the next year the valuation or classification of property shall be the valuation or classification that was determined by the review or appeal unless either:
1. There is new construction, a structural change or a change of use on the property as prescribed by section 42-13302, subsection A, paragraph 2.
2. Chapters 11 through 19 of this title require a specific annual formula for the valuation.
C. This section does not limit the right of a property owner to appeal the valuation or classification of the property.
Notes of Decisions
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C., 209 P.3d 163 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 56× “The oral argument before the Board focused on whether A.R.S. § 42-16002 required the roll-over of tax year 2005 property values to tax year 2006.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 350 P.3d 841 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 10× “See A.R.S. § 42-16002(B) (determining property valuation or classification in light of result of prior year’s tax appeal).”
Qasimyar v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “We therefore held that “a changed use under § 42-16002(B) must be a physical, objectively verifiable or demonstrable use or activity on the property itself, not just a change in ownership or of purpose, plan, or intent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16002(A) — 1 case
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C., 209 P.3d 163 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“The oral argument before the Board focused on whether A.R.S. § 42-16002 required the roll-over of tax year 2005 property values to tax year 2006.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16002(B) — 3 cases
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C., 209 P.3d 163 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“The oral argument before the Board focused on whether A.R.S. § 42-16002 required the roll-over of tax year 2005 property values to tax year 2006.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 350 P.3d 841 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“See A.R.S. § 42-16002(B) (determining property valuation or classification in light of result of prior year’s tax appeal).”
Qasimyar v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“We therefore held that “a changed use under § 42-16002(B) must be a physical, objectively verifiable or demonstrable use or activity on the property itself, not just a change in ownership or of purpose, plan, or intent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16002(B)(1) — 2 cases
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 350 P.3d 841 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“See A.R.S. § 42-16002(B) (determining property valuation or classification in light of result of prior year’s tax appeal).”
Qasimyar v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“We therefore held that “a changed use under § 42-16002(B) must be a physical, objectively verifiable or demonstrable use or activity on the property itself, not just a change in ownership or of purpose, plan, or intent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16002(B)(l) — 1 case
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C., 209 P.3d 163 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“The oral argument before the Board focused on whether A.R.S. § 42-16002 required the roll-over of tax year 2005 property values to tax year 2006.”
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.