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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16203 (2026)

Appeal from state board of equalization to court

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

A. Any party, or the department, that is dissatisfied with the valuation or classification of property reviewed by the state board of equalization may appeal to court as provided by this article.

B. The department or a county assessor who is dissatisfied with the determination by the state board of an equalization order under section 42-16159 may appeal to the court as provided by this article.

C. An appeal to court shall be taken within sixty days after the date of mailing of the state board's final decision.

D. Appeals resulting from a change in value due to correcting a property tax error pursuant to article 6 of this chapter shall be filed within sixty days after the date of mailing of the state board's decision.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2003–2016 · leading case: Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Questar S. Trails Pipeline Co., 161 P.3d 620 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Questar S. Trails Pipeline Co., 161 P.3d 620 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “¶ 4 The Department appealed the SBOE’s valuation to the tax court and Taxpayer likewise appealed the calculation pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 42-16203 and 42-16207 (2006), 2 naming as defendants the Department and counties in which its property lies.”
Sw. Airlines Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 175 P.3d 700 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Southwest appealed to the tax court pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 42-16203 (Supp.2007), -16204 (2006), -16207 (2006) and -11005 (2006).”
Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 379 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “¶ 6 The Department responded that Taxpayer could not add the County because the 60-day limitations period under A.R.S. § 42-16203(C) plus 120-day service period under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) had elapsed.”
Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 126 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶ 10 In accordance with A.R.S. § 42-16203 (Supp.2005), the Department filed separate appeals challenging the State Board’s rulings regarding SRP and APS in the Arizona Tax Court.”
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C., 209 P.3d 163 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “Although Article 5 contains more statutes pertaining to an appeal from the Board to the court, including A.R.S. §§ 42-16203, 42-16206, 42-16207, and 42-16208, it is undisputed that the right to that appeal is codified in A.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. TWC CHANDLER, 77 P.3d 468 (Ariz. T.C. 2003). · cites it 6× “Issues The County is seeking: 1) the Court's de novo review of the valuation of the subject properties, including the improvements, and 2) a declaration that the SBOE, in removing the improvements, acted without authority and in excess of its jurisdiction.”
Scottsdale/101 Assocs., LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 359 P.3d 1035 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “We refer to Scottsdale 101 and Desert Ridge Marketplace collectively as “Properties” and to Scottsdale/101 Associates, Inc.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16203(C) — 1 case
Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 379 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “¶ 6 The Department responded that Taxpayer could not add the County because the 60-day limitations period under A.R.S. § 42-16203(C) plus 120-day service period under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) had elapsed.”
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.