and interest. Because the City can afford complete relief, ADOR is not a necessary party. ¶24 Taxpayer contends, however, that it has never been given assurances that the actual funds are in the City’s possession and not ADOR’s. But, as ADOR points out, this contention is irrelevant. It is undisputed that ADOR collected the municipal tax revenues on the City’s behalf. The tax collection agreement obligates ADOR to pay the collected revenues to the City on a weekly basis. Because payment to the agent constitutes payment to the principal, as a matter of law, the City has received the disputed tax payments and is liable. See Ariz. Storage & Distrib. Co. v. Rynning, 37 Ariz. 232, 236-37, 293 P. 16, 17-18 (1930); cf. Maricopa County v. Hodgin, 46 Ariz. 247, 251-52, 50 P.2d 15, 16 (1935) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 25 Furthermore, we have found no law or
holding that the tax was indirect even though the recipient could not shift the tax to others holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity holding a county taxpayer has standing to bring a declaratory decree and injunctive action against public officials of the county when the action seeks to enjoin the grant of certain tax exemptions given to other taxpayers in the county on the ground that such exemptions violate specific limitations on the countys authority to grant tax exemptions imposed by the florida constitution holding that the county had no standing to sue the state to recover taxes illegally obtained from citizens unless the money belongs to the county holding that the university was not a political subdivision of the state because it had no power to tax or cause taxes to be levied