§ 27.6.6 APPEALS TO THE TAX COURT.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 27.6.6 Appeals To the Tax Court. A party aggrieved by a decision of the board of tax appeals may appeal that decision to tax court. A.R.S. § 42-1254(A). Except in the case of individual income taxes in which the amount at issue is less than $5,000, a person who is aggrieved by a final decision or order of the department under A.R.S. § 42-1251, which would include a final decision of the OAH, may appeal directly to the tax court in lieu of appealing to the state board of tax appeals "within 30 days after the decision or order from which the appeal is taken has become final." A.R.S. § 42-1254(C). The tax court may entertain class actions provided that the requirements of R. Civ. P. 23 are met. Dep't of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515, 522, ¶ 24, 29 P.3d 862, 869 (2001).

The department may appeal a board of tax appeals decision to tax court if the amount in dispute is less than $5,000, but only if the department determines that the issue "is of substantial significance to the state." A.R.S. § 42-1254(B). In such a case, the taxpayer may file a motion to dismiss the tax court action if she can demonstrate that the department abused its discretion in determining that the issue is of substantial significance.

Because decisions of the board, the department, and the OAH are all final 30 days after receipt by the taxpayer, an appeal to tax court from a decision of any of these agencies must be made within 60 days of the receipt of the decision by the taxpayer. This same 60-day period is available to the department. See State ex rel. Dep't of Revenue v. Dillon, 170 Ariz. 560, 562-63, 826 P.2d 1186, 1188-89 (App. 1991) (provision of A.R.S. § 42-1253(C) allowing appeal 30 days after the decision becomes final also applies to department).

Appeals to tax court are governed by the rules of civil procedure. A.R.S. § 12-166. In City of Mesa v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc., 166 Ariz. 420, 422, 803 P.2d 141, 143 (Tax 1990), the city amended its timely-filed complaint and then served it after the city code's 30-day deadline for appeals to the tax court. The taxpayer moved to dismiss on the basis that the appeal was untimely, but the court found that a tax appeal is a complaint governed by the rules of civil procedure. The city's original complaint and notice of appeal had been timely, and R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) allows a complaint to be amended once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served, by leave of court, or by written consent of the adverse party. No prejudice to the taxpayer was shown, and nothing in the city code required service of the complaint before the time for appeal expired. Id.

There is no change of tax judge without cause. In Mervyn's v. Maricopa Cty. Superior Court, 179 Ariz. 359, 361, 879 P.2d 367, 369 (App. 1994), the taxpayer sought to have the tax court judge removed because the judge had previously ruled against positions the taxpayer was taking in the present case. The tax court denied the request and the court of appeals affirmed. The court said that the general statute providing for challenges of a judge in civil actions was not applicable to tax court proceedings since there is only one tax court judge. The tax court statute also provides that the judge may be challenged only for cause. A.R.S. §§ 12-165, 12-409.

Maricopa County v. Ariz. Tax Court, 162 Ariz. 64, 781 P.2d 41 (App. 1989)................ 27-14

Spiegel v. Bd. of Supervisors of Maricopa County, 175 Ariz. 479, 857 P.2d 1333 (Tax 1993) 27-7, 14

Suncor Dev. Co. v. Maricopa County, 163 Ariz. 403, 788 P.2d 136 (Tax 1990)............... 27-6

E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 178 Ariz. 510, 875 P.2d 169 (App. 1993)........ 27-14

Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 147 Ariz. 216, 709 P.2d 573 (App. 1985) 27-14

Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 161 Ariz. 135, 776 P.2d 1061 (1989) 27-4

R. Civ. P. 23............................................................................................................. 27-20

Sempre Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa County, 225 Ariz. 106, 235 P.3d 259 (App. 2010)....... 27-12

T.C.R. Prac. 8............................................................................................................. 27-6

Amcal Diversified Corp. v. Maricopa County, 175 Ariz. 131, 854 P.2d 164 (Tax 1993). 27-15

City of Mesa v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc., 166 Ariz. 420, 803 P.2d 141 (Tax 1990) 27-21

City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 163 Ariz. 608, 790 P.2d 263 (App. 1989)........ 27-4

City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 166 Ariz. 480, 803 P.2d 891 (1990)................ 27-4

County of Maricopa v. Chatwin, 17 Ariz. App. 576, 499 P.2d 190 (1972)..................... 27-10

Dep't of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515, 29 P.3d 862 (2001).............................. 27-20

Dep't of Revenue v. Superior Court, 165 Ariz. 47, 796 P.2d 479 (App. 1990)................. 27-7

Devenir Assocs. v. City of Phoenix, 169 Ariz. 500, 821 P.2d 161 (1991)......................... 27-9

Ellman Land Corp. v. State, 169 Ariz. 13, 816 P.2d 272 (Tax 1991)............................... 27-7

Estate of Bohn v. Waddell, 174 Ariz. 239, 848 P.2d 324 (App. 1992).......................... 27-1, 4

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Maricopa County, 175 Ariz. 128, 854 P.2d 161 (Tax 1993).. 27-15

Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., 166 Ariz. 210, 801 P.2d 445 (App. 1990)................................... 27-15

Home Builders Ass'n of Central Ariz., Inc. v. Riddel, 109 Ariz. 404, 510 P.2d 376 (1973) 27-5

Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo Tribe, 471 U.S. 195 (1985).............................................. 27-2

Lyons v. State Bd. of Equalization, 209 Ariz. 497, 104 P.3d 867 (App. 2005)................ 27-13

Maricopa County v. Ariz. Tax Court, 162 Ariz. 64, 781 P.2d 41 (App. 1989).................. 27-6

McCluskey v. Sparks, 80 Ariz. 15, 291 P.2d 791 (1955)................................................. 27-4

McNutt v. Dep't of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 255, 995 P.2d 691 (App. 1998)..................... 27-1, 20

Merchants Despatch Transp. Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 20 Ariz. App. 276, 512 P.2d 39 (1973) 27-4

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982)................................................ 27-2

Mervyn's v. Maricopa County Superior Court, 179 Ariz. 359, 879 P.2d 367 (App. 1994) 27-21

Original Apartment Movers, Inc. v. Waddell, 179 Ariz. 419, 880 P.2d 639 (App. 1993)... 27-5

Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988)................................................................. 27-16

Read v. Dep't of Revenue, 166 Ariz. 533, 803 P.2d 944 (Tax 1991)........................ 27-10, 13

Schoenberger v. Bd. of Adjustment, 124 Ariz. 528, 606 P.2d 18 (1980)........................... 27-5

State ex rel. Dep't of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., 193 Ariz. 89, 970 P.2d 443App. 1998) 27-8

State ex rel. Dep't of Revenue v. Dillon, 170 Ariz. 560, 826 P.2d 1186 (App. 1991)...... 27-20

State ex rel. Dep't of Revenue v....