or possession of governmental agencies or public officials. Thus, under any common understanding of the words, we are not here dealing with “public money.” ¶ 37 Petitioners suggest, however, that because taxpayer money could enter the treasury if it were not excluded by way of the tax credit, the state effectively controls and exerts quasi-ownership over it. This expansive interpretation is fraught with problems. Indeed, under such reasoning all taxpayer income could be viewed as belonging to the state because it is subject to taxation by the legislature. That body has plenary power to set tax rates, categorize taxable income, and determine the type and amount of adjustments including deductions, exemptions, and credits. See Tanque Verde Enters., 142 Ariz. at 539-40, 691 P.2d at 305-06 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 38 Equally problematic is the fact that
recognizing the virtually unlimited authority of taxing bodies to set rates of taxation holding that absent other evidence of prevailing market rates the district judge may establish a reasonable rate based on his familiarity with the prevailing rates in the area holding that section 406b only governs a defendant service provider who was receiving agreedupon rates directly from a plan if that defendant had discretionary authority or control with respect to the rates agreed to by the plan sponsor holding that a carrier has a property interest in telecommunication rates and therefore is entitled to due process in the calculation of said rates recognizing a split of authority