Source: https://azdor.gov/legal-research?page=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:46:33+00:00

Document:
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 subtraction for compensation received for active service as a member of the armed forces of the United States did not apply to compensation from the United States Public Health Service because the Health Service does not fall within the definition of the armed forces.
Taxpayers did not establish they were real estate professionals entitled to an exception to the passive activity loss rule under I.R.C. § 469(c)(7).
A Taxpayer who has to repay in a later year amounts he had received and held under a claim of right that was reportable in previous years may deduct the repayment in the year in which it is made and cannot reduce a proposed assessment for 2009 for repayments made in 2011 and 2012, citing Income Tax Procedure (ITP) 95 1.
The definition of Arizona gross income for tax year 2009 did not allow the federal exclusion for $2,400 in unemployment compensation because the definition of Internal Revenue Code in the Arizona statutes never included that portion of the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
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.
Taxpayer cannot claim a deduction under A.R.S. § 43-1029 (restoration of amount held under claim of right) for wages he received but not repaid. Federal reserve notes are not non-taxable obligations of the United States under 31 U.S.C. § 3124.
While for peace officers traveling to or from work is considered in the course and scope of employment under A.R.S. § 23-1021.01(A), it is only for purposes of eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. A police officer may not deduct commuting expenses associated with driving between home and the police station where the officer was stationed.
Taxpayer may not claim a deduction for casualty loss for damage to insured property because a timely insurance claim was not submitted to the insurance company.
A taxpayer may choose to use either a standard meal allowance (per diem) or actual meal expenses to calculate the cost of daily meals and incidentals, but cannot claim both. A taxpayer using a standard meal allowance does not have to keep records of actual costs but must still establish the time, place and business purpose of the travel. Meal expenses, whether based on actual expenses or on a standard allowance, are limited to one-half of the allowable amount.
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. Taxpayers were thus required to add back to Arizona gross income the unemployment compensation that was excluded from federal adjusted gross income.
Taxpayers did not establish that their activity in a pyramid incentive system was engaged in for profit.
The fact that the Internal Revenue Code has not been enacted into positive law does not mean that the tax laws have no effect on state residents. It does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable.
Taxpayers did not establish that their activity of trading in options was substantial, frequent, regular, and continuous so as to be considered traders in securities.
Taxpayer was required to report all of his community property income on his return; Taxpayer did not substantiate his unreimbursed employee expenses.
The test for research and experimental expenses in connection with a trade or business under IRC § 174 is broader than the test for deducting ordinary and necessary expenses of carrying on a trade or business under IRC § 162.
Taxpayers were not entitled to the subtraction for active duty military pay for compensation received from the U.S. Public Health Service.
While a barred refund may be used to offset a tax assessment under certain limited circumstances, Taxpayers were not entitled to a refund of taxes not used to offset the assessment.
The Department had no obligation to refund taxes if a timely refund claim is not presented.
Taxpayers did not show they were in the business of buying and selling properties. Their general expenses could not be deducted on Schedule C but were only deductible as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A subject to the 2% limitation.
Investigatory expenses incurred in looking for potential investments are not deductible. Taxpayers did not meet their burden to substantiate travel expenses.
Expenses incurred in the process of purchasing property are capital expenses that may not be deducted as either business expenses or as expenses incurred for the production or collection of income. Such expenses must be capitalized.
Taxpayer did not demonstrate that he engaged in business for profit or that expenses were appropriate and necessary for the business to allow him to deduct the expenses on his Schedule C. Taxpayer also did not demonstrate that alleged contributions were allowable charitable deductions.

References: § 469
 § 43
 § 3124
 § 23
 § 174
 § 162