Ark. Code Ann. » Title 26 Chapter 18
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 26-18-101 (2026)

Title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Arkansas Tax Procedure Act”.

History. Acts 1979, No. 401, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 84-4701.

Publisher's Notes. Acts 1987, No. 382, § 2, provided that the purpose of this act is to make technical amendments to the Income Tax Act of 1929, Acts 1929, No. 118, as amended and to the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, Acts 1979, No. 401, as amended, to make the Arkansas income tax and the tax procedure statutes conform to several recent amendments to their counterparts in the federal income tax statutes, to eliminate procedural problems that have arisen since the enactment of these acts, and for other purposes.

Case Notes

Cited: Ragland v. Pittman Garden Ctr., Inc., 299 Ark. 293, 772 S.W.2d 331 (1989).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Weiss v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 200 S.W.3d 381 (Ark. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weiss v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 200 S.W.3d 381 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 4× “Honda further argues that it is a "taxpayer" because it meets the requirements of a "taxpayer" as defined by the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, which is codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 26-18-101 (Repl.1997). A "taxpayer" under this Act is defined as follows: (A) Any person subject to…”
Daimlerchrysler Servs. North Am., LLC v. Weiss, 200 S.W.3d 405 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 4× “Chrysler further argues that it is a "taxpayer" because it meets the requirements of a "taxpayer" as defined by the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, which is codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 26-18-101 (Repl.1997). A "taxpayer" under this Act is defined as follows: (A) Any person subject…”
Hercules Inc. v. Pledger, 894 S.W.2d 576 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 26-18-101 et seq. (Repl.”
Pledger v. Troll Book Clubs, Inc., 871 S.W.2d 389 (Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “Troll subsequently posted a bond for the taxes and brought this suit under the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act. The chancellor ruled that Troll’s sales of books to students in this State were not subject to the use tax.”
Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Larry Walther, Dir., Arkansas Dep't of Fin. & Admin., 2020 Ark. 349 (Ark. 2020). “This case stems from American Honda’s appeal under the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, Arkansas Code Annotated sections 26-18-101 et seq., challenging DFA’s denial of American Honda’s request for a corporate tax refund.”
Billy/Dot, Inc. v. Fields, 908 S.W.2d 335 (Ark. 1995). “Moreover, the administration of Act 939 is expressly placed in the hands of the Director of the Department of Finance and Administration: (a) The administration of this Act shall be vested in and shall be exercised by the Director [of the Arkansas Department of Finance and…”
Ragland v. Pittman Garden Ctr., Inc., 772 S.W.2d 331 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 26-18-101 et seq. (1987).”
A-1 Recovery Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. Larry Walther, Sec'y of the Arkansas Dep't of Fin. & Admin., 2023 Ark. 34 (Ark. 2023). · cites it 2× “In early 2020, A-1 initiated an administrative proceeding pursuant to the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, Arkansas Code Annotated section 26-18-101 et seq. (Repl. 2020), to protest proposed assessments by DFA.”
Cenark Inv. Grp., LLC v. Larry Walther, Sec'y of the Arkansas Dep't of Fin. & Admin., 2023 Ark. 30 (Ark. 2023). “Cenark initiated an administrative proceeding pursuant to the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 26-18-101 et seq. (Repl. 2020), to protest proposed assessments by DFA.”
City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas Advert. & Promotion Comm'n v. Aramark Educ. Servs., LLC, 2025 Ark. App. 306 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). “seq and the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act § 26-18-101, et. seq., the provisions of which so far as practicable, shall be deemed incorporated herein as applicable with respect to the enforcement and collection of the Advertising and Promotion Tax.”
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.