Ark. Code Ann. § 26-57-1303 (2026)
Certifications — Directory — Tax stamps
History. Acts 2003, No. 1073, § 3; 2005, No. 384, § 2; 2009, No. 655, § 98; 2009, No. 785, § 32; 2011, No. 836, § 14; 2019, No. 910, § 4224.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2005, No. 384, § 3, provided:
“Severability.
(a) If this act or any portion of the amendment to Arkansas Code § 26-57-261(2)(B)(ii) made by this act is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, then Arkansas Code § 26-57-261(2)(B)(ii) shall be deemed to be repealed in its entirety.
“(b) If Arkansas Code § 26-57-261(2)(B) shall thereafter be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, then this act shall be deemed repealed and Arkansas Code § 26-57-261(2)(B)(ii) be restored as if the amendment made by this act had not been made.
“(c) Neither any holding of unconstitutionality nor the repeal of Arkansas Code § 26-57-261(2) (B) (ii) shall affect, impair, or invalidate any other portion of Arkansas Code § 26-57-261 or the application of Arkansas Code § 26-57-261 to any other person or circumstance, and the remaining portions of Arkansas Code § 26-57-261 shall continue in full force and effect.”
Amendments. The 2009 amendment by No. 655, in (a)(3)(A), substituted “fax” for “facsimile” and inserted “and” at the end.
The 2009 amendment by No. 785 deleted “for sale” following “possess” in (c)(1)(B), inserted (c)(3)(B)(ii) and redesignated the remainder of (c)(3)(B) accordingly, inserted “and the twenty-one-day period has not expired” in (c)(3)(B)(i), and substituted “rule” for “regulation” in (c)(6)(B).
The 2011 amendment inserted present (a)(5)(H), (a)(9), (a)(10), (b)(3)(C), and (b)(4) and redesignated the remaining subdivisions accordingly; and deleted “Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, in the case of any nonparticipating manufacturer who has established a qualified escrow account pursuant to §§ 26-57-260 and 26-57-261 that has been approved by the Attorney General” at the beginning of present (b)(7)(A).
The 2019 amendment substituted “Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration” for “Director of the Department of Finance and Administration” in (b)(4)(A).
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
This section and § 26-57-261 did not violate a tobacco importer's First Amendment rights where its only complaint, a loss of competitive advantage, did not unconstitutionally burden speech, whether considered personal or commercial. Int'l Tobacco Ptnrs., LTD v. Beebe, 420 F. Supp. 2d 989 (W.D. Ark. 2006).
Federal Preemption.
Tobacco importer's claim that the allocable share amendment set forth in § 26-57-261 and this section violated 15 U.S.C. § 1 was dismissed where the amendment did not mandate price-setting or output price fixing by private parties and, as a result, the state statutes were not preempted by the Sherman Act. Int'l Tobacco Ptnrs., LTD v. Beebe, 420 F. Supp. 2d 989 (W.D. Ark. 2006).