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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-2078 (2026)

New interpretation or application of law; affirmative defense; definition

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

42-2078. New interpretation or application of law; affirmative defense; definition

A. Unless expressly authorized by law, the department shall not apply any newly enacted law retroactively or in a manner that will penalize a taxpayer for complying with prior law.

B. If the department adopts a new interpretation or application of any provision of this title or title 43 or determines that any of those provisions applies to a new or additional category or type of taxpayer, and the change in interpretation or application is not due to a change in the law:

1. The change in interpretation or application applies prospectively unless it is favorable to taxpayers.

2. The department shall not assess any tax, penalty or interest retroactively based on the change in interpretation or application.

3. The change is an affirmative defense in any administrative or judicial action for retroactive assessment of tax, interest and penalties to taxable periods before the new interpretation or application was adopted.

C. Tax liabilities, penalties and interest paid before a new interpretation or application of chapter 5 of this title by the department shall not be refunded unless the taxpayer requesting the refund provides evidence satisfactory to the department that the amounts will be refunded to the person who paid an added charge to cover the tax.

D. For the purposes of this section, "new interpretation or application" includes policies and procedures adopted by administrative rule, tax ruling, tax procedure or instructions to a tax return.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2012–2019 · leading case: Stearns v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 291 P.3d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stearns v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 291 P.3d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “According to Taxpayers, the Department is violating A.R.S. § 42-2078(B) (2006) by failing to use adjusted gross income in the numerator as it allegedly did in Steams I.”
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 312 P.3d 1143 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Invoking a hearing officer’s statement in a prior audit, Taxpayer asserts that the Department took the official position that sales of minority stock interests in Cadence and Synopsys gave rise to nonbusiness income.”
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide, 247 Ariz. 234 (Ariz. 2019). · cites it 6× “at 22 ¶ 25. And although privilege taxes are self-assessed, see Tucson Mech.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-2078(B): 2 cases
Stearns v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 291 P.3d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “According to Taxpayers, the Department is violating A.R.S. § 42-2078(B) (2006) by failing to use adjusted gross income in the numerator as it allegedly did in Steams I.”
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 312 P.3d 1143 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “Invoking a hearing officer’s statement in a prior audit, Taxpayer asserts that the Department took the official position that sales of minority stock interests in Cadence and Synopsys gave rise to nonbusiness income.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-2078(D): 1 case
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide, 247 Ariz. 234 (Ariz. 2019). “at 22 ¶ 25. And although privilege taxes are self-assessed, see Tucson Mech.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-2078(b)(3): 1 case
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide, 247 Ariz. 234 (Ariz. 2019). “at 22 ¶ 25. And although privilege taxes are self-assessed, see Tucson Mech.”
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.