History.
Acts 1941, No. 386, §§ 12, 19; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 84-1913, 84-1919; Acts 1987, No. 372, § 1; 1995, No. 835, § 4; 2017, No. 141, § 13; 2019, No. 910, §§ 3823, 3824.
Amendments.
The 2017 amendment, in (e), substituted “without limitation” for “not by limitation”, inserted “specified digital products, or a digital code”, and made stylistic changes.
The 2019 amendment substituted “Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration” for “Director of the Department of Finance and Administration” in (a); and substituted “secretary” for “director” in (b) and (e).
Effective Dates.
Acts 2017, No. 141, § 63, as amended by Acts 2017, No. 596, §
1: “Sections 2 through 61 of this act are effective for tax years beginning on and after January 1, 2018.”
Case Notes
Cited:
Cook v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., 212 Ark. 308, 206 S.W.2d 20 (1947); Thompson v. Chadwick, 221 Ark. 720, 255 S.W.2d 687 (1953); Tony & Susan Alamo Found., Inc. v. Ragland, 295 Ark. 12, 746 S.W.2d 45.
Notes of Decisions
Gildehaus v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 2016 Ark. 414 (Ark. 2016).
“Gildehaus cites to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 26-52-201(a) and 26-52-205, which provide, respectively, that it is unlawful to transact business without a sales-tax permit and that the permit must be conspicuously displayed at the place of business.”
Tony & Susan Alamo Found., Inc. v. Ragland, 746 S.W.2d 45 (Ark. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Alamo operates these businesses for profit and obtained a retail sales tax permit as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 26-52-201 (1987). From these businesses, the Alamo Foundation provides substantial goods and services to its “associates” and their families.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 26-52-201(a): 1 case
Gildehaus v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 2016 Ark. 414 (Ark. 2016).
“Gildehaus cites to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 26-52-201(a) and 26-52-205, which provide, respectively, that it is unlawful to transact business without a sales-tax permit and that the permit must be conspicuously displayed at the place of business.”
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.