Ark. Code Ann. § 26-52-508 (2026)
Collection of tax by sellers or admissions collectors
History. Acts 1941, No. 386, § 7; A.S.A. 1947, § 84-1908; Acts 2007, No. 154, §§ 5, 6; 2007, No. 181, § 26; 2017, No. 141, § 36; 2019, No. 910, § 3869.
Amendments. The 2017 amendment inserted “specified digital products, or a digital code” in (a)(1).
The 2019 amendment substituted “Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration” for “Director of the Department of Finance and Administration” in the introductory language of (a).
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
Excess Collection.
Doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply where out-of-state corporation retained out of purchase price from Arkansas customers two (now three) percent of amount of sale but agreed to return the two (now three) percent to customers if corporation was not liable for gross receipts tax. Thompson v. Rhodes-Jennings Furniture Co., 223 Ark. 705, 268 S.W.2d 376, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 872, 75 S. Ct. 108, 99 L. Ed. 686 (1954).
A discount retailer that collected sales tax in accordance with a regulation promulgated pursuant to this section, and as a result held funds in excess of the three percent authorized by § 26-52-301, was entitled to retain the excess, since all statutory requirements were met, the consumers who paid the tax could not be identified, and a refund of the overcollection was not possible. Ragland v. K-Mart Corp., 274 Ark. 297, 624 S.W.2d 430 (1981).
Liability for Tax.
Retailer was liable for the tax if he failed to collect it. Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Roth, 193 Ark. 1015, 104 S.W.2d 207 (1937) (decision under prior law).
Extension of credit by power company did not operate to deprive it of the power of, nor relieve it from the duty of, making collection of tax, nor to relieve consumer from liability to pay tax. Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Roth, 193 Ark. 1015, 104 S.W.2d 207 (1937) (decision under prior law).
Consumer of electricity was liable to power company for tax on sale of electricity made to him even though he had not expressly contracted to pay such tax, since the duty was imposed by law. Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Roth, 193 Ark. 1015, 104 S.W.2d 207 (1937) (decision under prior law).
Lender was not entitled to bad-debt refunds, under § 26-52-309, of sales taxes paid on defaulted consumer credit accounts with retailers because: (1) the retailer, not the lender, was the “taxpayer” liable for the tax; and (2) the lender was not entitled to such refunds as an assignee of the retailer, as the Gross Receipts Act did not include “assignee” in the definition of a “taxpayer.” Citifinancial Retail Servs. Div. of Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v. Weiss, 372 Ark. 128, 271 S.W.3d 494 (2008).
Cited: Parker v. Kern-Limerick, Inc., 223 Ark. 464, 266 S.W.2d 298 (1954); Ragland v. Miller Trane Serv. Agency, Inc., 274 Ark. 227, 623 S.W.2d 520 (1981).