History.
Acts 1981 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 26, § 24, as added by Acts 1983, No. 723, § 7; A.S.A. 1947, § 17-2042; Acts 2001, No. 1560, § 3.
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Tax Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 613.
Case Notes
Construction with Other Law.
It was no error to enjoin a special election to allow bonds to finance a courthouse because the ordinances sought to use taxes from one judicial district in Mississippi County to fund a courthouse in another district of Mississippi County, contrary to Acts 1901, No. 81, § 20, which clearly required revenue to be used for the exclusive benefit of the judicial district from which it arose. (The 1901 provisions at issue were repealed by Acts 2017, No. 751, §
7).
Mississippi Cnty. v. City of Osceola, 2017 Ark. 71, 515 S.W.3d 96 (2017).
Acts 1901, No. 81, which required revenue to be used for the exclusive benefit of the judicial district from which it arose, was not superseded by § 26-74-201 et seq., as (1) § 26-74-201 et seq. did not refer to Act 81, (2) the stated legislative intent of § 26-74-201 et seq. was to supplement acts adopted to make capital improvements and issue bonds for their financing, (3) a county's power to tax did not conflict with requiring that revenue derived from one judicial district be used for the exclusive benefit of that district, and (4) a general statute had to yield to a specific statute. (The 1901 provisions at issue were repealed by Acts 2017, No. 751, §
7).
Mississippi Cnty. v. City of Osceola, 2017 Ark. 71, 515 S.W.3d 96 (2017).
Initiative Petitions.
An initiative petition, which proposed an ordinance to reduce the percentage rate of an existing county sales and use tax, was facially invalid and failed to comply with Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution because it was contrary to the specific enactment procedures mandated by this subchapter. Stilley v. Henson, 342 Ark. 346, 28 S.W.3d 274 (2000).
Cited:
Pledger v. Brunner & Lay, Inc., 308 Ark. 512, 825 S.W.2d 599; Sanders v. County of Sebastian, 324 Ark. 433, 922 S.W.2d 334 (1996).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1990–2019 · leading case: Stilley v. Henson, 28 S.W.3d 274 (Ark. 2000).
Stilley v. Henson, 28 S.W.3d 274 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 24דWe decline to do so and hold that the initiative petition is facially invalid and fails to comply with Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution because it is contrary to the specific enactment procedures mandated by Ark. Code Ann. §§ 26-74-201 et seq. (Repl.”
Foster v. Jefferson Cnty. Quorum Court, 901 S.W.2d 809 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 12דFurthermore, the authority for the ordinance by the Jefferson County Quorum Court is Act 26 of 1981, now codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 26-74-201 et seq. (1987 & Supp.”
Roberts v. Priest, 20 S.W.3d 376 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 4דSimilarly, an election of qualified voters is necessary to abolish a local sales and use tax; but a city or county may not repeal, abolish, or reduce any local sales and use tax, even by election, if that tax was levied pursuant to these provisions and was pledged as security…”
City of Little Rock v. Waters, 797 S.W.2d 426 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 4דAct 26 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1981 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 26-74-201 to -221 (1987))a one percent countywide sales and use tax; 3.”
Stilley v. Hubbs, 40 S.W.3d 209 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 4דIn affirming the circuit court’s decision on October 12, 2000, we held the initiative petition was facially invalid and failed to comply with Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution because it was contrary to the specific enactment procedures mandated by Ark. Code Ann. §§…”
Sanders v. Cnty. of Sebastian, 922 S.W.2d 334 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2דRather, the ordinance was merely the first step in a process authorized by Act 26 of 1981, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 26-74-201 et seq. (1987 & Supp.”
Mississippi Cnty. v. City of Osceola, 2017 Ark. 71 (Ark. 2017). · cites it 15דArk. Code Ann. § 26-74-201 (c)(2). They note that the first sales-and-use tax in Arkansas was enacted in 1935, many years after the passage of Act 81 of 1901.”
Pledger V. Brunner & Lay, Inc., 825 S.W.2d 599 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 8דOne percent countywide use taxes, subject to a limit of $25 with respect to a single transaction, are authorized by Ark. Code Ann. §§ 26-74-201 et. seq. Ark.”
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.