Legal IT Done Right
602-412-5025 | totalnetworks.com/legal
Dave & Stephanie Kinsey, Total Networks Owners
More Law Firms
Legal IT Needs.
such would in effect constitute a modification of
parent time as well. The appellate court concluded that the trial court must consider the effect on parenting time under such circumstances
and specifically address the factors of A.R.S. §
25-403. Baker v. Meyer, 2 CA-CV 15-0107,
COURT OF APPEALS TAX MATTERS
Specific property use determines classification rather than general use of parcel. The
Legislature establishes an assessment classification for property valued by the Assessor and
Department of Revenue. Each parcel is assigned to a classification and each classification
has a distinct assessment rate. Scottsdale/101
Associates and Vestar owned shopping center
developments located on publicly owned land.
The Assessor determined a full cash value for
the properties and placed them into Class One,
the Class with the highest assessment rate. Class
One had an assessment rate of between 23. 5
and 25 percent of full cash value for the periods
covered by the litigation. Scottsdale/101 Associates and Vestar asserted that while the majority of the improvements in the shopping center
developments should be within Class One, the
particular improvements consisting of the movie theaters should be within a different classification, Class Nine, reserved for improvements
on government property used exclusively for
recreation, and other specified, purposes. Class
Nine had the lowest, 1 percent, assessment rate.
The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing the Tax
Court, and holding that Arizona’s classification
system does in fact allow for mixed-use parcels
and resulting mixed assessment rates in situations such as these. If the characteristics of a
particular parcel allow for some of the parcel to
be within different classifications, then the parcel should have a mixed assessment rate taking
into account the different classification’s assessment rate. The Assessor’s placing of each shopping center completely into Class One was in
error. Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa
County, 1 CA-TX 14-0003, 9/29/15.
indicates a dissent.
cases and other
may be found at