Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16210 (2026)
Payment of tax
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. All taxes levied and assessed against property for the year on which an appeal has been filed by the property owner shall be paid before they become delinquent.
B. If the taxes are not paid before becoming delinquent, the court shall dismiss the appeal except when either of the following occur:
1. The full year tax for the year is paid on or before December 31 of the tax year pursuant to section 42-18053.
2. The remaining one-half tax that is unpaid is delinquent after the immediately following May 1 at 5:00 p.m. is paid by July 1, including all interest due.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2007–2015 · leading case: Gen. Motors Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 350 P.3d 841 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 350 P.3d 841 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “We also affirm the tax court’s ruling that, under A.R.S. § 42-16210, a valuation appeal may be pursued even if taxes that come due while the appeal is pending are not timely paid.”
Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 340 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “In the absence of a final, enforceable settlement of the taxes, Taxpayers were required to timely pay their taxes pursuant to § 42-16210, and they did not. Arizona law thus required the tax court to dismiss Taxpayers’ appeals.”
Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Questar S. Trails Pipeline Co., 161 P.3d 620 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “Taxpayer did not owe interest for the 2005 tax year because before directly appealing to the tax court it paid the full amount assessed by the Department’s valuation, as required by A.R.S § 42-16210. . We cite to the previous version of this statute because the current version…”
Strawberry Ridge Estates, LLC v. Gila Cnty., 350 P.3d 833 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Both § 42-16210 and § 42-18352 are such “more specific statements,” setting forth the requirements for specific types of actions.”
Maracay Thunderbird v. Maricopa Cnty., 231 P.3d 389 (Ariz. T.C. 2010). “Maracay Thunderbird asserts that the jurisdiction, which was proper at the time of filing, is not lost due to the subsequent sale of the property to another owner.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16210(A) — 1 case
Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 340 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “In the absence of a final, enforceable settlement of the taxes, Taxpayers were required to timely pay their taxes pursuant to § 42-16210, and they did not. Arizona law thus required the tax court to dismiss Taxpayers’ appeals.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16210(B) — 3 cases
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 350 P.3d 841 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “We also affirm the tax court’s ruling that, under A.R.S. § 42-16210, a valuation appeal may be pursued even if taxes that come due while the appeal is pending are not timely paid.”
Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 340 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “In the absence of a final, enforceable settlement of the taxes, Taxpayers were required to timely pay their taxes pursuant to § 42-16210, and they did not. Arizona law thus required the tax court to dismiss Taxpayers’ appeals.”
Maracay Thunderbird v. Maricopa Cnty., 231 P.3d 389 (Ariz. T.C. 2010). “Maracay Thunderbird asserts that the jurisdiction, which was proper at the time of filing, is not lost due to the subsequent sale of the property to another owner.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16210(B)(l) — 1 case
Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 340 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “In the absence of a final, enforceable settlement of the taxes, Taxpayers were required to timely pay their taxes pursuant to § 42-16210, and they did not. Arizona law thus required the tax court to dismiss Taxpayers’ appeals.”
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.