# Omega Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Maples

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 7, 1993 · 312 Ark. 489

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9672452

## Case

- **Full name:** OMEGA TUBE & CONDUIT CORPORATION v. Ed MAPLES, Pulaski County Tax Collector, and B.A. McIntosh, Pulaski County Assessor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 7, 1993
- **Citations:** 312 Ark. 489; 850 S.W.2d 317
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Brown, Hays, Newbern
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9672452

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that mistakenly paid taxes on manufacturing inventory were not subject to a refund

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9672452. Public record. Not legal advice.