A.R.S. § 43-1071(F) did not create new and otherwise unavailable credit for taxes paid to California where group return filed in California had forfeited California credit for taxes paid in Arizona.
Taxes in assessments issued in 2019 were not subject to a bankruptcy discharge order where the taxpayer had filed the bankruptcy petition in 2016. The issuance of assessments is not an action to collect a debt, but rather an act to determine liability. Whether some or part of the tax assessed is affected by a bankruptcy filing is a different question from whether the issuance of an assessment is valid.
Automatic stay after taxpayer's bankruptcy petition did not apply. The issuance of assessments is not an action to collect a debt against either the debtor taxpayer or a bankruptcy estate, but rather an act to determine liability.
While a taxpayer using the standard meal allowance (per diem) method does not have to keep records of actual costs, the taxpayer must still establish the time, place and business purpose of the travel. Only one-half of the per diem allowed for meals and incidental expenses may be deducted.
Taxpayer is not entitled to deduct as alimony payments representing a division of the retirement accounts of Taxpayer and his ex-spouse. The payments constituted property settlement.
Taxpayer, an Arizona resident, cannot claim a credit for income taxes paid to California because California allows a credit for residents of Arizona for income taxes paid to Arizona. Taxpayer might still be able to claim a credit in California under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 19311.5 after the Arizona income tax has been paid.
Taxpayer is not entitled to a refund of taxes withheld by his employer because Taxpayer did not file a return within four years after the due date of the original return.
Taxpayer is entitled to interest abatement for 45 month period during which the protest was not worked because an auditor was not assigned to the matter. There are no grounds to abate remaining interest or tax.
Taxpayer cannot claim a deduction for a federal credit for mortgage interest if they claimed a mortgage interest deduction rather than a credit on their federal tax return.
Arizona income tax law did not conform to the federal provision that excluded up to $2,400 of unemployment compensation from federal gross income for tax year 2009. The definition of Arizona gross income for tax year 2009 did not allow the federal exclusion for unemployment compensation. The fact Taxpayers were not aware of the non-conformance is not a basis to abate an otherwise proper assessment.
