Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; May 16, 1974; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Petitioners filed a special action petition claiming that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction over the case and sought to vacate a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of additional taxes on ten computers owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had initially paid taxes on these computers, which were mistakenly assessed at lower values due to an error by the assessor's office. Upon discovery, the Department of Property Valuation directed corrections, leading to a tax levy for the additional amounts, which the plaintiff failed to pay. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction against the collection of these additional taxes. The plaintiff argued, citing a prior case, that the initial tax payment precluded the assessor from correcting the mistake and collecting the additional taxes. However, petitioners contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under A.R.S. 42-204 and that the proper remedy for the plaintiff was to pay the taxes under protest and seek a refund. The court referenced its prior decision in County of Maricopa v. Chatwin, emphasizing that taxpayers must pursue available statutory remedies when taxes are assessed with apparent authority.
The court concludes that the principles from the referenced case negate the trial court's jurisdiction to issue an injunction in this matter. A.R.S. 42-204 provides a statutory remedy for the plaintiff to present its claims regarding the injunction, which, despite appearing inadequate at first glance, is deemed sufficient upon deeper examination of its underlying policy to protect government revenue collection. The plaintiff asserts that the case of Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Maricopa County is relevant to its claims, arguing that the taxes were not imposed with proper authority. However, the court finds that the actions of the assessor do have a 'semblance of authority' based on A.R.S. 42-601 et seq., which assigns the assessor the responsibility for property assessments, and A.R.S. 42-123, which grants the Department of Property Valuation oversight over assessors. The court emphasizes that recognizing the assessor's authority is crucial to uphold the procedural restrictions outlined in A.R.S. 42-204. Thus, the court rules that the plaintiff cannot use injunctive relief to challenge the assessor's corrections, as doing so would undermine the anti-injunction provisions of A.R.S. 42-204. Consequently, the court grants the petitioners' relief, instructing the trial judge to vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. The assessment of additional computers is noted to be subject to separate litigation. The plaintiff has paid taxes on these additional computers and initiated a refund action for the claimed overpayment after an appeal upheld the assessments.
A.R.S. 42-204 establishes that individuals subject to taxation cannot challenge the validity or amount of taxes imposed if they have not paid all taxes due, with specific provisions for private car companies under A.R.S. 42-746. It prohibits the issuance of injunctions or extraordinary writs against the state or local authorities to obstruct tax assessments or collections. Once the tax is paid, taxpayers may pursue recovery for any illegally collected taxes, with provisions for refunding any overpayment. Additionally, the case of Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Maricopa County illustrates that the Board of Equalization lacks authority to raise the assessed value of unsecured personal property after taxes are paid for that year, as the taxpayer had contested the additional taxes and sought a refund.
