state transaction privilege in Arizona

1978Welsh & Son Contracting Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 4 Ariz.App. 398 , 420 P.2d 970 (1966), this court recognized that certain fringe benefit contributions of an employer are payment for labor and thus permissible exemptions for purposes of the state transaction privilege tax.

1978Welsh & Son Contracting Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 4 Ariz.App. 398 , 420 P.2d 970 (1966), this court recognized that certain fringe benefit contributions of an employer are payment for labor and thus permissible exemptions for purposes of the state transaction privilege tax.

2003In Arizona Department of Revenue v. O’Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Killingsworth & Beshears, P.A., 192 Ariz. 200 , 963 P.2d 279 (App.1997), an out-of-state vendor was held to be subject to the tax although it had no property, business location or employees in Arizona because it had one customer in the state and because its activities in performing the contract with that customer over the year's wex'e significantly associated with its ability to establish and maintain an Arizona market. ¶ 23 Applying O’Connor, a nexus was found in Care Computer Systems in which case the out-of-state vendor had n

2003In Arizona Department of Revenue v. O’Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Killingsworth & Beshears, P.A., 192 Ariz. 200 , 963 P.2d 279 (App.1997), an out-of-state vendor was held to be subject to the tax although it had no property, business location or employees in Arizona because it had one customer in the state and because its activities in performing the contract with that customer over the year's wex'e significantly associated with its ability to establish and maintain an Arizona market. ¶ 23 Applying O’Connor, a nexus was found in Care Computer Systems in which case the out-of-state vendor had n

2003In Arizona Department of Revenue v. O’Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Killingsworth & Beshears, P.A., 192 Ariz. 200 , 963 P.2d 279 (App.1997), an out-of-state vendor was held to be subject to the tax although it had no property, business location or employees in Arizona because it had one customer in the state and because its activities in performing the contract with that customer over the year's wex'e significantly associated with its ability to establish and maintain an Arizona market. ¶ 23 Applying O’Connor, a nexus was found in Care Computer Systems in which case the out-of-state vendor had n

2003In Arizona Department of Revenue v. O’Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Killingsworth & Beshears, P.A., 192 Ariz. 200 , 963 P.2d 279 (App.1997), an out-of-state vendor was held to be subject to the tax although it had no property, business location or employees in Arizona because it had one customer in the state and because its activities in performing the contract with that customer over the year's wex'e significantly associated with its ability to establish and maintain an Arizona market. ¶ 23 Applying O’Connor, a nexus was found in Care Computer Systems in which case the out-of-state vendor had n

1995State v. Levy’s, 119 Ariz. 191 , 580 P.2d 329 (1978).

1995State v. Levy’s, 119 Ariz. 191 , 580 P.2d 329 (1978).

1995Thus, there is no merit to *405 Greenberg’s argument that a state transaction privilege tax on the gross receipts derived from reservation-based school construction “ ‘impedes the clearly expressed federal interest in promoting the “quality and quantity” of educational opportunities for Indians.’” Answering Brief at 8 (quoting Ramah, 458 U.S. at 842 , 102 S.Ct. at 3401 ).

1995Thus, there is no merit to *405 Greenberg’s argument that a state transaction privilege tax on the gross receipts derived from reservation-based school construction “ ‘impedes the clearly expressed federal interest in promoting the “quality and quantity” of educational opportunities for Indians.’” Answering Brief at 8 (quoting Ramah, 458 U.S. at 842 , 102 S.Ct. at 3401 ).

1981This court in State v. Selby, 25 Ariz.App. 500, 544 P.2d 717 (1976) held that the state transaction privilege tax was not applicable to a casual lease transaction.

1981This court in State v. Selby, 25 Ariz.App. 500, 544 P.2d 717 (1976) held that the state transaction privilege tax was not applicable to a casual lease transaction.