This bit:

return @$ar1, @$ar2, @$ar3;
[download]

Should be:

return $ar1, $ar2, $ar3;
[download]

Similarly, this:

return @{ $ar1 }, @{ $ar2 }, @{ $ar3 };
[download]

Should also be:

return $ar1, $ar2, $ar3;
[download]

return @{ $ar1 }, @{ $ar2 }, @{ $ar3 };
[download]

return ($ar1, $ar2, $ar3);
[download]

Basically, the whole thing could probably be rewritten as this (untested):

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use warnings;

use Data::Dumper;

my ($test_a, $test_b, $test_c) = get_data();

print Dumper $test_a;
print Dumper $test_b;
print Dumper $test_c;

sub get_data{

     my ($ar1, $ar2, $ar3);


     push @$ar1,   ["Acc #", "Name", "Date", "House Number",],
        ["1235456", "Joe More", "03/07/2010", "5",],;  
    
     push @$ar2,  ["", "", "","",],
          ["Home ", "Year", "City","",],
          ["", "", "","",],
             ["1", "2000", "Local 1","",],
                ["2", "2001", "Local 2 ","",],
                ["3", "2002", "Local 3 ","",],
                ["4", "2003", "Local 4 ","",],
                ["5", "2014", "TLocal 5 ","",],
          ["", "", "","",],;
        
     push @$ar3, ["", "", "","",],
        ["Operation:", "", "","",],
        ["", "", "","Name","Place", "LOC", "REF","A#1","B#2", "C#3", "
+D#4",],
        ["", "", "","","", "", "","","", "", "",],
        ["", "", "","1","Mary L", "5/15/1940", "S","V","P", "-", "-",]
+,
        ["", "", "","2","Joe T", "6/8/1990", "B","Q","X", "-", "-",],
        ["", "", "","3","Carl C", "07/5/1288", "A","S","Y", "-", "-",]
+,
        ["", "", "","","", "", "","","", "", "",],;

     return $ar1, $ar2, $ar3;
}
[download]

Update: OK, I wanted to explain too much, so that two others were faster than me by 2 minutes. ;-) Also added revised full program (untested).

... I wanted to explain too much ...

When working for PerlMonks XP, the ideal strategy is similar to the one that works best when being interrogated by the police:

1. Speak when you're spoken to;
2. Answer the question asked without voluntering further information; and
3. Then shut your mouth.

Update: By "Answer the question ...", I don't mean to imply that an answer one gives to the police must necessarily be a truthful answer.

Yeah, I guess you must be right, thanks for the advice. ;-)

Perhaps don't dereference the array refs when returning from subroutines?

use warnings;
use strict;
use diagnostics;

my $string = "";

add_i_to_string($string);

sub add_i_to_string {
    my ($string) = @_;
    my $new_string = $string . "i";
    add_am_to_string($new_string);
}

sub add_am_to_string {
    my ($string) = @_;
    my $new_string = $string . " am";
    add_ironman_to_string($new_string);
}

sub add_ironman_to_string {
    my ($string) = @_;
    my $new_string = $string . " ironman";
    string_print($new_string);
}

sub string_print {
    my ($string) = @_;
    print $string;
}

#prints "i am ironman"
[download]

Your question makes no sense. In the code you show there is no point at which you are explicitly returning data from any of your subs and at no point is implicitly returned data from any sub used. Maybe you meant something like:

use warnings;
use strict;

print addIronman(addAm(addI("")));

sub addI {
    my ($string) = @_;
    $string . "i";
}

sub addAm {
    my ($string) = @_;
    return $string . " am";
}

sub addIronman {
    my ($string) = @_;
    return "$string ironman";
}
[download]

Note that addI returns its result implicitly because the result is the last value evaluated before the implicit return at the end of the sub. The other subs return explicit values.

Perl is the programming world's equivalent of English

i was trying to reason in my post, what would be the reason for returning anything from any sub if it can be dealt with in a sub? i think that is the question i was shooting for even tho my code didnt even show it. hopefully you see what i mean tho. EDIT: very good example code tho.

Note that GrandFather's reply (++) includes an example of what I think of as 'classic' functional programming (update: actually, I think this would more formally be called procedural programming). Open almost any introductory CS textbook (hint, hint) and you will quickly encounter further, extensive discussion of this topic.

You are passing an argument to your subroutines, but using $string essentially as a global variable. That is defeatring the purpose of funnctions receiving arguments and returning values, which can thus be abstracted out as black boxes.