Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 43
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1201 (2026)

Organizations exempt from tax

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

43-1201. Organizations exempt from tax

 

(Caution:  1998 Prop. 105 applies)

 

A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the following organizations are exempt from the taxes imposed under this title:

1. Organizations that are exempt from federal income tax under section 501 of the internal revenue code.

2. Insurance companies that pay to this state a tax on premium income derived from sources within this state.

B. Nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries under title 36, chapter 28.1, are exempt from the taxes imposed under this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1980–2016 · leading case: Kotterman v. Killian, 972 P.2d 606 (Ariz. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kotterman v. Killian, 972 P.2d 606 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 4× “§§ 501 (a), (c)(3), 170(a), (c)(2)(B); AR.S. §§ 43-1201, 43-1042. “[T]he doctrine of separation of church and state does not include the doctrine of total nonrecognition of the church by the state and of the state by the church.”
State v. Fendler, 622 P.2d 23 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “§ 43-147 (Now A.R.S. § 43-1201). Moreover, we interpret the quoted language as requiring a -corporation to file a return even if it shows a loss for the taxable period in question.”
Church of the Isaiah 58 Proj. of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz Cnty., 314 P.3d 806 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The ADOR letter stated that Taxpayer was exempt from state income tax pursuant to A.R.S. § 43-1201(4) and that Taxpayer’s property “used or held primarily for religious worship” was exempt from taxation under AR.”
Am. Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull, 146 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Ariz. 2001). “An organization which has qualified for an exemption from taxation of income under § 43-1201, paragraph 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 or 11 may conduct a raffle that is subject to [certain] restrictions: C.”
Tucson Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Pima Cnty., 189 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “TBG is an Arizona corporation qualified as a non-profit charitable organization under § 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code and A.R.S. § 43-1201. TBG is dedicated to horticultural and ecological education.”
Volunteer Ctr. of So. Az. v. Staples, Ford, Pima Co., 147 P.3d 1052 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “But § 42-11154 provides an alternative method by which a nonprofit organization can establish that its property is not being “used or held for profit”: a letter of determination from the Arizona Department of Revenue recognizing its tax-exempt status under A.R.S. § 43-1201.…”
Am. Legion v. Az Gaming (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 13-3302(B), which provides, in relevant part: An organization that has qualified for an exemption from taxation of income under section 43-1201 . . . may conduct a raffle that is subject to the following restrictions: 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1201(4) — 2 cases
Kotterman v. Killian, 972 P.2d 606 (Ariz. 1999). “§§ 501 (a), (c)(3), 170(a), (c)(2)(B); AR.S. §§ 43-1201, 43-1042. “[T]he doctrine of separation of church and state does not include the doctrine of total nonrecognition of the church by the state and of the state by the church.”
Church of the Isaiah 58 Proj. of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz Cnty., 314 P.3d 806 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “The ADOR letter stated that Taxpayer was exempt from state income tax pursuant to A.R.S. § 43-1201(4) and that Taxpayer’s property “used or held primarily for religious worship” was exempt from taxation under AR.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1201(A) — 1 case
Am. Legion v. Az Gaming (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 13-3302(B), which provides, in relevant part: An organization that has qualified for an exemption from taxation of income under section 43-1201 . . . may conduct a raffle that is subject to the following restrictions: 1.”
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.