Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 26-52-309 (2026)

Deduction for bad debts generally

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

History. Acts 1983 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 94, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 84-1950; Acts 2003, No. 1273, § 8; 2007, No. 181, § 13.

Research References

ALR.

Recovery of Sales Taxes Paid on Bad Debts. 38 A.L.R.6th 255.

Case Notes

Applicability.

Trial court did not err in denying car manufacturer a refund or deduction of the pro rata portion of gross receipts tax related to bad debts arising out of the sale and financing of motor vehicles as the car manufacturer was not a “taxpayer” for the purposes of the Arkansas Bad Debt Statute, § 26-52-309. DaimlerChrysler Servs. N. Am., LLC v. Weiss, 360 Ark. 188, 200 S.W.3d 405 (2004).

Trial court erred in finding that a corporation was a “taxpayer” for the purposes of this section and in granting a refund or deduction of the pro rata portion of gross receipts tax related to bad debts arising out of the sale and financing of motor vehicles in Arkansas; it was possible to be a taxpayer for one kind of tax, while not a taxpayer for another kind of tax. Weiss v. American Honda Fin. Corp., 360 Ark. 208, 200 S.W.3d 381 (2004).

Lender was not entitled to bad-debt refunds, under this section, of sales taxes paid on defaulted consumer credit accounts with retailers because: (1) the retailer, not the lender, was the “taxpayer”; and (2) the lender was not entitled to such refunds as an assignee of the retailer. Citifinancial Retail Servs. Div. of Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v. Weiss, 372 Ark. 128, 271 S.W.3d 494 (2008).

26-52-310 — 26-52-313. [Repealed.]

Publisher's Notes. These sections, concerning rental and moving vehicle taxes, were repealed by Acts 2007, No. 182, §§ 2-4. The sections were derived from the following sources:

26-52-310. Acts 1987 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 13, §§ 2, 4; 1989, No. 510, §§ 2-4; 1991, No. 1026, § 1; 1999, No. 1220, § 2.

26-52-311. Acts 1989, No. 510, §§ 1, 3, 4; 1993, No. 1059, § 1; 1993, No. 1152, § 1; 1993, No. 1162, § 1; 1999 No. 1220, § 3; 2001, No. 949, § 1; 2003 (2nd Ex. Sess.), No. 107, § 2; 2005, No. 664, § 1.

26-52-312. Acts 1993, No. 1162, § 2.

26-52-313. Acts 1997, No. 1076, § 3.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2004–2008 · leading case: Daimlerchrysler Servs. North Am., LLC v. Weiss, 200 S.W.3d 405 (Ark. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Daimlerchrysler Servs. North Am., LLC v. Weiss, 200 S.W.3d 405 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 12× “Appellant DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC ("Chrysler") appeals the order of dismissal of the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Seventeenth Division, wherein the circuit court found that it lacked jurisdiction to award a "bad debt" refund to Chrysler because Chrysler is…”

Weiss v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 200 S.W.3d 381 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 8× “Appellant Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration (DF & A) appeals the partial summary judgment entered by the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Division, wherein the circuit court found that the complaint was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and that…”

Citifinancial Retail Servs. Div. of Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v. Weiss, 271 S.W.3d 494 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 5× “The circuit court found that Citifinancial was not a “taxpayer” under Ark. Code Ann. § 26-52-309 (Supp. 2005), and therefore was not entitled to a refund for sales taxes paid on defaulted consumer credit accounts.”

Citifinancial Retail Servs. v. Weiss, 271 S.W.3d 494 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 5× “The circuit court found that Citifinancial was not a "taxpayer" under Ark.Code Ann. § 26-52-309 (Supp.2005), and therefore was not entitled to a refund for sales taxes paid on defaulted consumer credit accounts.”

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.