As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Department" means the department of revenue.
(2) "Executive director" or "executive director of the department of revenue" means the executive director of the department of revenue and includes the head of any group, division, or subordinate department, as appointed in accordance with article 35 of title 24, C.R.S., whenever the executive director specifically authorizes the group, division, or subordinate department head to act on his or her behalf.
(3) "Person" includes any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, joint venture, estate, trust, or group or combination acting as a unit.
(4) "Taxpayer" includes a person against whom a deficiency is being asserted, whether or not he has paid any of the tax in issue prior thereto.
Source: L. 65: p. 1148, § 2. C.R.S. 1963: § 138-9-15. L. 76: (1) amended and (1.5) added, p. 777, § 2, effective July 1. L. 77: Entire section R&RE, p. 1765, § 1, effective June 19. L. 90: (3) amended, p. 450, § 28, effective April 18. L. 93: (2) amended, p. 1239, § 13, effective July 1. L. 2000: (2) amended, p. 1639, § 18, effective June 1.
Notes of Decisions
Hanson v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 140 P.3d 256 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “” Section 39-21-101(4), C.R.S.2005. The procedure for mailing a final determination is governed by § 39-21-105.”
Toncray v. Dolan, 593 P.2d 956 (Colo. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Section 39-21-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1973. Although the taxpayers had risked substantial deficiency assessments, interest and penalties by not following the Department’s regulation, without a deficiency assessment they could not contest the validity of the regulation in issue.”
Huff v. Tipton, 810 P.2d 236 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “The department argued that the administrative procedures set out in § 39-21-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol.”
State Dep't of Revenue v. Dist. Court, 568 P.2d 1157 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 2× “This conclusion is buttressed by section 39-21-101, which defines “taxpayer” as “a person against whom a deficiency is being asserted.”
People v. Litchfield, 902 P.2d 921 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
“1991) (the controlled substances tax is subject to provisions of § 39-21-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1994 Repl.Vol.”
Direct Mktg. Ass'n v. Brohl, 735 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 2013).
“” Colo.Rev.Stat. § 39-21-101(4). A "person” includes business entities such as retailers.”
Buckley Powder Co. v. State, 924 P.2d 1133 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“Third, as previously noted, administrative remedies are available, § 39-21-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1994 Repl.Vol.”
Flores v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, State, Tax Div., 802 P.2d 1175 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 7× “The Colorado Department of Revenue appeals from an adverse judgment of the trial court construing certain provisions of § 39-21-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-21-101(4): 2 cases
Hanson v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 140 P.3d 256 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“” Section 39-21-101(4), C.R.S.2005. The procedure for mailing a final determination is governed by § 39-21-105.”
Direct Mktg. Ass'n v. Brohl, 735 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 2013).
“” Colo.Rev.Stat. § 39-21-101(4). A "person” includes business entities such as retailers.”
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.