Maricopa County v. Prop. Tax Oversight Comm'n
In Maricopa County v. Prop. Tax Oversight Comm'n, 188 Ariz. 214, 933 P.2d 1289 (App. 1997), the Property Tax Oversight Commission ("PTOC") contended that the question whether an obligation is "voluntary" depends exclusively on the nature of the taxing authority's particular acts that gave rise to the obligation, not on the means by which the obligation was ultimately imposed. 188 Ariz. at 218, 933 P.2d at 1293.
The PTOC urged: "Involuntariness must be determined by looking at the acts creating the obligation.
These could be the tortious act itself, the act that causes the injury, or in a contract case, entering into an agreement." Id.
The court in Maricopa County responded:
This analysis is inconsistent with the controlling Arizona case law. Following Gomez, Wise, and Garcia, we find that an obligation is deemed involuntary not because the act that gave rise to it was committed unintentionally, unconsciously, or accidentally, but rather because the obligation itself was not "voluntarily incurred." In this case, the obligation to refund taxes was imposed by a superior authority and was clearly an involuntary obligation not within the two percent limitation. Id.