Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue

393 P.3d 146, 242 Ariz. 85, 761 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 44, 2017 WL 1149071, 2017 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 330
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
DecidedMarch 28, 2017
DocketNo. 1 CA-TX 16-0004
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 393 P.3d 146 (Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, 393 P.3d 146, 242 Ariz. 85, 761 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 44, 2017 WL 1149071, 2017 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 330 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

[87]*87OPINION

WINTHROP, Judge:

¶ 1 Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (“AEPCO”) appeals the tax court’s summary judgment in favor of the Arizona Department of Revenue (“the Department”). Because AEPCO’s purchases of coal and natural gas are subject to use tax, we affirm the judgment of the tax court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 AEPCO, a non-profit Arizona cooperative corporation, owns and operates the Apache Generating Station, an electric generation facility in Cochise County. AEPCO sells most of the electricity it produces to cooperative members, and sells the remainder to the general electricity market.

¶3 To generate electricity, AEPCO uses coal and natural gas, most of which AEPCO purchases from out-of-state suppliers, who are not subject to Arizona’s transaction privilege tax. AEPCO originally paid use tax on those purchases, but later filed two refund claims with the Department, requesting a refund of use tax paid between 2003 and 2010.1 The Department denied both claims. After an unsuccessful protest before the Office of Administrative Hearings, AEPCO appealed the Department’s final order to the tax court pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 42-1254(0) (2013).2

¶ 4 In the tax court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The tax court granted the Department’s motion and denied AEPCO’s cross-motion, determining that AEPCO’s purchases of coal and natural gas were subject to use tax. After entry of final judgment in favor of the Department, AEPCO timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.04(G) (2016), -120.21(A)(1) (2016), and -170(C) (2016).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 6 This court reviews de no,vo the tax court’s grant of summary judgment and its interpretation of relevant statutes. See CCI Europe, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 237 Ariz. 50, 52, ¶ 7, 344 P.3d 352, 354 (App. 2015). Although we liberally construe statutes imposing taxes in favor of taxpayers, we strictly construe tax exemptions, given the general policy that all taxpayers should share the common burden of taxation. State ex rel. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., 207 Ariz. 445, 447, ¶ 10, 88 P.3d 159, 161 (2004). We apply these standards to determine whether AEPCO’s purchases of coal and natural gas from out-of-state vendors are subject to Arizona’s use tax.

ANALYSIS

I. AEPCO’s Purchases of Coal and Natural Gas Are Within the Scope ofA.R.S. § Í2-5155

¶ 6 AEPCO first argues that its purchases of coal and natural gas fall “outside the scope of the Arizona use tax as nontaxable purchases for resale.”

¶ 7 Arizona law imposes a use tax “on the storage, use or consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer or utility business,” A.R.S. § 42-5155(A) (Supp. 2015). “Tangible personal property” is defined as “personal property which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt or touched or is in any other manner perceptible to the senses.” A.R.S. § 42-5001(17) (Supp. 2015). In contrast to the transaction privilege tax, which is imposed on transactions consummated within Arizona, a use tax is designed to reach out-of-state sales of tangible personal property to Arizona purchasers. Qwest Dex, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 210 Ariz. 223, 225, ¶ 12, 109 P.3d 118, 120 (App. 2005) (citing People of Faith Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 161 Ariz. 514, 519, 779 P.2d 829, 834 (Tax Ct. 1989); Nathaniel T. Trelease & Andrew W. Swain, The [88]*88Law’s Long Arm: The Taxation of Electronic Commerce, Ariz. Att’y, June 2002, at 20). The use tax statutes create a presumption that property purchased out-of-state and brought into Atizona is intended for storage, use, or consumption within the state, see A.R.S. § 42-5152 (2013), and the taxpayer has the burden of rebutting that presumption.

¶ 8 The Arizona Legislature has defined the tern “use or consumption” as “the exercise of any right or power over tangible personal property incidental to owning the property except holding for sale or selling the property in the regular course of business.” AR.S. § 42-5151(22) (Supp. 2015) (emphasis added). Pursuant to § 42-5151(22), tangible personal property purchased for resale is not subject to use tax. See Motorola, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 137, 138, ¶ 4, 993 P.2d 1101, 1102 (App. 1999) (“The tax does not extend to items for sale.”).

¶ 9 Applying this definition, AEPCO argues that its purchases of coal and natural gas are for resale and, therefore, fall outside the scope of the use tax, In support of its position, AEPCO offered expert testimony, which explained as follows:

Electric generation facilities do not produce, create or make electricity out of nothing. Electric generation facilities purchase coal and natural gas for the chemical energy that is in the coal and natural gas. Electric generation facilities convert the chemical energy in the coal and natural gas into electrical energy (electricity) for resale.

The Department’s expert disagreed, contending that “[h]eat engines in a power plant (gas turbines and/or steam turbines) consume fuel (natural gas or coal) by combusting that fuel with air,”

¶ 10 The parties’ experts agreed that the generation of electricity involves a multi-step process that begins with the combustion of fuel. In gas turbines, the combustion produces an exhaust stream that rotates a power turbine, which in turn causes the generator to rotate. In steam turbines, the combustion produces steam that rotates a steam turbine, which in turn causes the generator to rotate. The experts also agreed that “[i]n both cases the rotating generators transform mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy, then into electrical energy, which finally drives the flow of electric charge (i.e. electric current, electricity).”3

¶ 11 Because the language of § 42-5155 is plain and unambiguous, we “apply the language used.” City of Mesa v. Killingsworth, 96 Ariz. 290, 294, 394 P.2d 410, 412 (1964). Pursuant to § 42-5155, any pei’son storing, using, or consuming tangible personal property purchased out-of-state is liable for use tax. See A.R.S. § 42-5155(E); Qwest Dex, 210 Ariz.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carter Oil v. Ador
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2020
Driver v. Ador
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
393 P.3d 146, 242 Ariz. 85, 761 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 44, 2017 WL 1149071, 2017 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arizona-electric-power-cooperative-inc-v-arizona-department-of-revenue-arizctapp-2017.