Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 42

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16251

Definitions

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

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Board" means the county board of equalization or the state board of equalization, as appropriate.

2. "Court" means either the superior court or tax court.

3. "Error" means any mistake in assessing or collecting property taxes resulting from:

(a) An imposition of an incorrect, erroneous or illegal tax rate that resulted in assessing or collecting excessive taxes.

(b) An incorrect designation or description of the use or occupancy of property or its classification pursuant to chapter 12, article 1 of this title.

(c) Applying the incorrect assessment ratio percentages prescribed by chapter 15, article 1 of this title.

(d) Misreporting or failing to report property if a statutory duty exists to report the property.

(e) Subject to the requirements of section 42-16255, subsection B, a valuation or legal classification that is based on an error that is exclusively factual in nature or due to a specific legal restriction that affects the subject property and that is objectively verifiable without the exercise of discretion, opinion or judgment and that is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, such as:

(i) A mistake in the description of the size, use or ownership of land, improvements or personal property.

(ii) Clerical or typographical errors in reporting or entering data that was used directly to establish valuation.

(iii) A failure to timely capture on the tax roll a change in value or legal classification caused by new construction, the destruction or demolition of improvements, the splitting of one parcel of real property into two or more new parcels or the consolidating of two or more parcels of real property into one new parcel existing on the valuation date.

(iv) The existence or nonexistence of the property on the valuation date.

(v) Property that is destroyed after the lien date.

(vi) Any other objectively verifiable error that does not require the exercise of discretion, opinion or judgment.

Error does not include a correction that results from a change in the law as a result of a final nonappealable ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction in a case that does not involve the property for which a correction is claimed.

4. "Tax officer" means the department, county assessor or county treasurer, as applicable.

5. "Taxpayer" means the owner of real or personal property that is liable for tax.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1999–2020 · leading case: Lyons v. State Board of Equalization
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization (2005) arizctapp · cites it 11× “(e) Subject to the requirements of § 42-16255, subsection B, a valuation that is based on an error that is exclusively factual in nature or due to a specific legal restriction that affects the subject property and that is objectively verifiable without the exercise of…”
Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC (2011) arizctapp · cites it 18× “constitutes an ‘error’ under *439 A.R.S. § 42-16251.” The Board then reduced the property’s full cash value to $71,099,000 for tax year 2003 and $99,349,000 for tax year 2004.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2012) ariz · cites it 4× “But even assuming arguendo that the County is correct about subsection *26 3(e), nothing in § 42-16251 suggests that a taxpayer’s inability to seek relief under one subsection bars relief under another.”
South Point Energy Center, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue (2016) arizctapp · cites it 4× “For tax years 2010 and 2011, Defendants alternatively moved to dismiss on the basis that South Point was not entitled to relief under the error-correction statutes, A.R.S. §§ 42-16251 to -16259. ¶6 Treating Defendants’ motions as motions for summary judgment, the tax court held…”
Premiere RV & Mini Storage LLC v. Maricopa County (2009) arizctapp · cites it 4× “¶ 26 Premiere argues that the error correction statutes, A.R.S. §§ 42-16251 and -16252, permit the Assessor to “correct” the valuation of parcels when valuation is not completed by September 30 of .”
Pima County Assessor v. Arizona State Board of Equalization (1999) arizctapp · cites it 5× “”) §§ 42-16251 to -16259 (1999) (eff. Jan. 1, 1999) (formerly denominated as §§ 42-179 to -179.”
Swift Transportation Co. v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp · cites it 4× “Taxpayer supports this contention by arguing that the unitary theory of valuation was superseded by the enactment of the error correction statutes, AR.S. §§ 42-16251 to -16252 (Supp.2009). We do not interpret the enactment of the error correction statutes in such a manner.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp · cites it 2× “section 42-16251(3) in sufficient time to assert it through a tax appeal, then sections 42-16251 to -16259 cannot later provide a remedy.”
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp · cites it 4× “¶ 4 Taxpayer claims that the Class One determination for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 tax years is an “error” under A.R.S. § 42-16251(3) (2006). It argues that the Property qualified as Class Nine, A.”
Maricopa County v. TWC CHANDLER (2003) ariztaxct · cites it 2× “The Court further finds that the issue of whether the County's proposed value violates A.R.S. § 42-16251 is outside the scope of the immediate Motion to Dismiss and is not the basis for dismissal of this action; it may later be the basis for a motion for summary judgment.”
Vista Verde v. Maricopa County (2015) arizctapp · cites it 23× “The sixty-day post-notice limitation for petitioning an assessment does not apply, however, if an assessment challenge is brought pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 42-16251 to -16259 (“Error Correction Statutes”); A.”
Transwestern v. Ador (2020) arizctapp · cites it 8× “"Error" is defined in A.R.S. § 42-16251(3) as "any mistake in assessing or collecting property taxes resulting from: .”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16251(3) — 10 cases
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization (2005) arizctapp “(e) Subject to the requirements of § 42-16255, subsection B, a valuation that is based on an error that is exclusively factual in nature or due to a specific legal restriction that affects the subject property and that is objectively verifiable without the exercise of…”
Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC (2011) arizctapp “constitutes an ‘error’ under *439 A.R.S. § 42-16251.” The Board then reduced the property’s full cash value to $71,099,000 for tax year 2003 and $99,349,000 for tax year 2004.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2012) ariz “But even assuming arguendo that the County is correct about subsection *26 3(e), nothing in § 42-16251 suggests that a taxpayer’s inability to seek relief under one subsection bars relief under another.”
Pima County Assessor v. Arizona State Board of Equalization (1999) arizctapp “”) §§ 42-16251 to -16259 (1999) (eff. Jan. 1, 1999) (formerly denominated as §§ 42-179 to -179.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp “section 42-16251(3) in sufficient time to assert it through a tax appeal, then sections 42-16251 to -16259 cannot later provide a remedy.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16251(3)(b) — 5 cases
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization (2005) arizctapp “(e) Subject to the requirements of § 42-16255, subsection B, a valuation that is based on an error that is exclusively factual in nature or due to a specific legal restriction that affects the subject property and that is objectively verifiable without the exercise of…”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp “section 42-16251(3) in sufficient time to assert it through a tax appeal, then sections 42-16251 to -16259 cannot later provide a remedy.”
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County (2012) arizctapp “¶ 4 Taxpayer claims that the Class One determination for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 tax years is an “error” under A.R.S. § 42-16251(3) (2006). It argues that the Property qualified as Class Nine, A.”
Vista Verde v. Maricopa County (2015) arizctapp “The sixty-day post-notice limitation for petitioning an assessment does not apply, however, if an assessment challenge is brought pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 42-16251 to -16259 (“Error Correction Statutes”); A.”
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa County (2015) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16251(3)(d) — 2 cases
Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC (2011) arizctapp “constitutes an ‘error’ under *439 A.R.S. § 42-16251.” The Board then reduced the property’s full cash value to $71,099,000 for tax year 2003 and $99,349,000 for tax year 2004.”
Transwestern v. Ador (2020) arizctapp “"Error" is defined in A.R.S. § 42-16251(3) as "any mistake in assessing or collecting property taxes resulting from: .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16251(3)(e) — 4 cases
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization (2005) arizctapp “(e) Subject to the requirements of § 42-16255, subsection B, a valuation that is based on an error that is exclusively factual in nature or due to a specific legal restriction that affects the subject property and that is objectively verifiable without the exercise of…”
Pima County Assessor v. Arizona State Board of Equalization (1999) arizctapp “”) §§ 42-16251 to -16259 (1999) (eff. Jan. 1, 1999) (formerly denominated as §§ 42-179 to -179.”
Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC (2011) arizctapp “constitutes an ‘error’ under *439 A.R.S. § 42-16251.” The Board then reduced the property’s full cash value to $71,099,000 for tax year 2003 and $99,349,000 for tax year 2004.”
Vista Verde v. Maricopa County (2015) arizctapp “The sixty-day post-notice limitation for petitioning an assessment does not apply, however, if an assessment challenge is brought pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 42-16251 to -16259 (“Error Correction Statutes”); A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16251(3)(e)(iii) — 1 case
Park Central Mall, LLC v. Maricopa County (2000) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16251(3)(e)(vi) — 1 case
Transwestern v. Ador (2020) arizctapp “"Error" is defined in A.R.S. § 42-16251(3) as "any mistake in assessing or collecting property taxes resulting from: .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16251(4) — 1 case
Premiere RV & Mini Storage LLC v. Maricopa County (2009) arizctapp “¶ 26 Premiere argues that the error correction statutes, A.R.S. §§ 42-16251 and -16252, permit the Assessor to “correct” the valuation of parcels when valuation is not completed by September 30 of .”
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.