Ark. Code Ann. § 26-74-212 (2026)
Applicability of tax
History. Acts 1981 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 26, § 7; A.S.A. 1947, § 17-2027; Acts 1991, No. 536, § 1; 1991, No. 765, § 9; 1992 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 73, § 2; 2003, No. 374, §§ 1, 2; 2003, No. 1273, § 36; 2007, No. 181, § 41.
Publisher's Notes. The version of this section, as amended by Acts 1991, No. 765, § 9, concerning applicability of tax, was repealed by Acts 1992 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 73, § 1.
Amendments. The 2003 amendment by No. 374 redesignated former (a) as (a)(1)(A) and added “Except as provided in subdivision (a)(1)(B) of this section” preceding “A county sales tax,” and made minor stylistic changes; in (b), substituted “apply for “be applicable” following “shall not.”
The 2003 amendment by No. 1273 rewrote (a); deleted former (b); and redesignated former (c) as present (b).
The 2007 amendment substituted “pursuant to the sourcing rules in §§ 26-52-521 and 26-52-522” for “of the county where the property or services are first used, stored, consumed or distributed” in (b).
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
The assertion that a city and county imposed a retail sales tax on sales made outside the city and county did not plead an illegal exaction claim since the plaintiffs claimed neither that funds generated by the sales taxes had been misapplied or illegally spent or that the local tax ordinances were invalid. Western Foods, Inc. v. Weiss, 338 Ark. 140, 992 S.W.2d 100 (1999).
Cited: Hotels.com, L.P. v. Pine Bluff Adver. & Promotion Comm'n, 2013 Ark. 392, 430 S.W.3d 56 (2013).