Court Opinion

ID: 9672452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:55:26.652351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:16.316040
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Per Curiam. Pulaski County argues our opinion is contrary to Ark. Const, art. 16, §§ 5 and 6. The County, again citing Eoff v. Kennefick-Hammond Co., 80 Ark. 138 (1906), says we misused the terms “exempt” and “exemption” as only certain property listed in the Constitution may be “exempted” from taxation. In the Eoff case, in addition to the Commerce Clause issue, we interpreted a statute now codified as Ark. Code Ann. § 26-3-201 (Repl. 1992) which, in relevant part, provides, “All property, whether real or personal, in this state; . . . shall be subject to taxation.” We held property brought to Arkansas to use in construction of a railroad was not in transit but acquired a tax situs here. We did not have before us Act 269 of 1969 [Ark. Code Ann. § 26-26-1102 (Repl. 1992)]. It was not our intention to declare the property in question “exempt” in the constitutional sense; rather, according to § 26-26-1102, it does not attain a tax situs in Arkansas. Rehearing denied. Hays and Brown, JJ., would grant rehearing.