| WAC 100 |
Appeals. |
|
|
|
| SOURCE |
DOCUMENT |
DETER. NO |
DATE OF ISSUE |
DESCRIPTION |
| WAC: |
458-20-100 |
|
09/29/2005 |
Appeals. Effective 11/1/05.
Provides clearer and more up-to-date information. |
| |
|
|
11/30/1990 |
Appeals, small claims and
settlements. Effective 1/1/91 |
| RCW: |
82.03.160 |
|
1989 |
Appeals to board--Formal
hearings, powers of board or tax referees--Assistance. |
| |
82.32.160 |
|
1975 |
Correction of tax--Administrative
procedure--Conference--Determination by department. |
| |
82.32.170 |
|
1967 |
Reduction of tax after
payment--Petition--Conference--Determination by department. |
| |
82.32A.020 |
|
1991 |
Rights. |
| |
82.32A.030 |
|
1991 |
Responsibilities. |
| ETA |
3065.2009 |
|
2/2/09 |
Oral instructions relating to tax liability |
|
3055.2009 |
|
2/2/09 |
BTA Nonacquiescence |
|
419.32.99 |
|
7/1/98 |
Hotel/Motel Tax - Oral Instruction Revised 2/2/09 See ETA 3065.2009 |
|
2009 |
|
8/20/02 |
BTA Nonacquiescence Revised 2/2/09 See ETA 3055.2009
- Lincoln Ballinger Limited Partnership, Docket No. 51253 (October 7, 1998)
- Cimlinc, Inc., Docket No. 54862 (June 13, 2000)
- Puget Sound Industries, Inc., Docket No. 54675 (August 16, 2000)
|
| INDUSTRY
GUIDES: |
|
|
|
| SPECIAL
NOTICES: |
|
|
|
| DIRECTIVE: |
None |
|
|
|
| RPM: |
None |
|
|
|
| WTD: |
1 WTD 245 |
86-268 |
|
APPEALS - PETITIONS - TIMELY - PREMATURE FILING. Petitions for review should be directed to the Interpretations and Appeals Section, should be identified as a petition for correction of assessment and must be filed after an assessment has been issued. |
| |
1 WTD 245 |
86-268 |
|
APPEALS - FAILURE TO FILE - ASSESSMENTS - FINALITY. If a petition for correction of assessment is not filed within the twenty day time period or within the period covered by any extension, then the assessment becomes final and the Department loses all further jurisdiction. |
| |
1 WTD 287 |
86-278 |
|
PENALTIES
-- UNREGISTERED TAXPAYER. RCW
82.32.100 provides that the Department shall add late payment penalties if a
person fails to make any return required by the Revenue act. |
| |
1 WTD 295 |
86-280 |
|
PENALTIES
-- UNREGISTERED TAXPAYER. RCW
82.32.100 provides that the Department shall add late payment penalties if a
person fails to make any return required by the Revenue act. |
| |
1 WTD 367 |
106WN2D391 |
|
BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX -- COLLECTION -- ESTOPPEL -- CHANGE OF POSITION BY STATE -- EFFECTIVE DATE. For
the purpose of estopping the State from collecting taxes, a taxpayer cannot
justifiably rely on the State's position or interpretation of a tax liability
once the taxpayer has noticed that the state has changed its position even
though the State has not yet adopted the new position as official policy. |
| |
2 WTD 189 |
87-39 |
|
APPEALS -- TIMELINESS -- PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ASSESSMENT. Petitions for correction of assessment must be filed within twenty
days of the issuance of the notice of assessment or before the due date of
the assessment if the due date has been extended. Petitions not filed within this time frame
will be dismissed. |
| |
2 WTD 235 |
87-47 |
|
APPEALS -- CONFERENCES -- FAILURE TO APPEAR. A taxpayer who
fails to appear for a scheduled conference and who fails to communicate a
reason for his failure to appear will have his appeal decided on the basis of
the written record. |
| |
2 WTD 325 |
87-66 |
|
EXCISE TAX -- INTEREST -- PENALTIES -- STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS -- UNREGISTERED TAXPAYER -- REGISTRATION
WITH OTHER AGENCIES -- ESTOPPEL. The
four-year statute of limitations for the assessment of excise tax does not apply
in favor of a previously registered taxpayer. The department of Revenue is
not estopped from assessing tax outside the statute of limitations by virtue
of the taxpayer's registration with other state agencies or offices. |
| |
3 WTD 231 |
87-192 |
|
INTEREST -- PRIOR AUDITS -- RELIANCE ON. Interest waived where taxpayer reasonably relied on previous
audits in which tax was not assessed on similar transactions. |
| |
4 WTD 87Â |
87-298 |
|
USE TAX -- INTEREST -- ESTOPPEL
-- MISINFORMATION FROM OTHER STATE AGENCIES. The Department of Revenue is not estopped from collecting taxes when
the failure of a taxpayer to pay was due to misinformation supplied to the
taxpayer by another state agency. |
| |
4 WTD 379 |
87-373 |
|
APPEAL PROCEDURES -- TIME
LIMITS. Once the time limit for appeal
of a Determination has passed, with no further appeal filed, the
Determination becomes final and cannot later be challenged. |
| |
5 WTD 179 |
88-155 |
|
B&O TAX -- EXEMPTION -- MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES -- REFUNDS -- RETROACTIVITY. The Washington
Supreme Court in National Can Corporation v. Department
of Revenue and Tyler
Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue,
109 Wn 2d 878, (1988) held that the U. S Supreme Court decision in Tyler
Pipe, which invalidated the multiple activities exemption of the B&O tax,
applied prospectively only, and that RCW 82.04.4286 and 82.32.060 did not
require the State to refund taxes paid or excuse taxes owed before the court
decision. Taxes are therefore lawfully
due for periods prior to June 23, 1987 in accordance with the multiple
activities exemption. |
| |
6 WTD 83 |
87-214A |
|
B&O TAX -- EXEMPTION -- MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES -- REFUNDS -- RETROACTIVITY. The Washington Supreme Court in National Can Corporation v. Department of Revenue and Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v.
Department of Revenue, 109 Wn2d 878, cert. denied 56 U.S.L.W. 3828
(1988) held that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tyler Pipe, which
invalidated the multiple activities exemption of the B&O tax, applied
prospectively only, and that RCW 82.04.4286 and 82.32.060 did not require the
State to refund taxes paid before the filing of a court decision invalidating
a tax statute if the decision applies prospectively only. |
| |
6 WTD 89 |
88-246 |
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS -- OBITER
DICTUM -- PARENT LOANS TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES -- "BUT FOR"
ASSUMPTION. An incidental opinion
expressed in an administrative determination is not a binding rule of the
case and is not the basis for challenging the dispositive findings and
conclusions of the determination. The
assumption that, but for its borrowing money from a parent company a
subsidiary would borrow from a financial institution is obiter dictum. THIS DETERMINATION HAS BEEN OVERRULED OR
MODIFIED IN WHOLE OR PART BY DET.NO. 93-269ER, 14 WTD 153 (1995). |
| |
6 WTD 217 |
86-29A |
|
B&O TAX -- EXEMPTION -- MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES -- REFUNDS -- UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX -- RETROACTIVITY. The Washington Supreme Court in National Can Corporation v. Department of Revenue and Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v.
Department of Revenue, 109 Wn 2d 878, cert.
denied, 56 U.S.L.W. 3828 (1988) held that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Tyler Pipe, which invalidated the multiple activities exemption of the
B&O tax, applied prospectively only. The Department will follow that finding. Accord: Det. No. 87-215AÂ WTD (1988). |
| |
6 WTD 255 |
88-303 |
|
B&O TAX -- EXEMPTION -- MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES -- REFUNDS -- RETROACTIVITY. The Washington
Supreme Court in National Can Corporation v. Department
of Revenue and Tyler
Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue,
109 Wn 2d 878, cert. denied, 56 U.S.L.W. 3828 (1988) held that the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Tyler Pipe, which invalidated the multiple activities exemption
of the B&O tax, applied prospectively only, and that RCW 82.04.4286 and
82.32.060 did not require the State to refund taxes paid before the filing of
a court decision invalidating a tax statute if the decision applies
prospectively only. |
| |
6 WTD 299 |
88-316 |
|
APPEAL PROCEDURES. Department of Revenue is not required to
hold a conference between the taxpayer and the auditor's supervisor prior to
the issuance of an assessment. Taxpayer failed to show actual injury where conference occurred eight
days after issuance of the assessment and where such conference resulted in
adjustments to the assessment in taxpayer's favor. |
| |
6 WTD 357 |
88-232A |
|
APPEALS -- HEARINGS -- ENTITLEMENT -- DISCRETION. Under RCW
82.32.160 and WAC 458-20-100(8), the Department is vested with the discretion
to grant or deny hearings. Any right to
a hearing is vested in the Board of Tax Appeals or the Thurston County
Superior Court. |
| |
7 WTD 79 |
88-459 |
|
B & O TAX -- EXEMPTION -- MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES -- UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX -- PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION -- ASSESSMENTS ISSUED BUT NOT COLLECTED. The Washington Supreme Court in National Can
Corporation v. Department of Revenue and Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v.
Department of Revenue,109 Wn.2d 878, cert.
denied, 56 U.S.L.W. 3828, (1988), held that the U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Tyler Pipe, which invalidated the multiple activities exemption of the
B&O tax, applied to prospective taxes only. |
| |
8 WTD 251 |
89-471 |
|
APPEAL PROCEDURES -- REFUSAL TO
COOPERATE OR TO PRODUCE RECORDS. Taxpayer is required to inform himself of the tax ramifications of his
business activities in this state. That other taxpayers fail to comply with this state's tax laws is
immaterial with regard to this taxpayer, and his refusal to produce records
or to cooperate bar him from questioning the assessment. |
| |
8 WTD 401 |
89-521 |
|
APPEAL PROCEDURES -- REFUSAL TO
COOPERATE OR TO PRODUCE RECORDS. Taxpayer is required to inform itself of the tax ramifications of its
business activities in this state. Refusal to produce records or to cooperate bar taxpayer from
questioning the assessment. |
| |
9 WTD 281 |
90-143 |
|
MISCELLANEOUS -- ESTOPPEL -- ORAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM DEPARTMENT. On narrow facts presented, taxpayer has
supported its account of instructions given during two telephone
conversations with the Department sufficiently to justify permitting it to
amend its reporting methods prospectively. |
| |
9 WTD 286-45 |
90-165 |
|
B&O TAX -- MISINFORMATION -- BY DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE -- EXCISE TAX RETURN -- ESTOPPEL. Where a Department
employee filled out a taxpayer's excise tax return incorrectly by using a
line for an inapplicable B&O category, the taxpayer was entitled to rely
on that writing. The Department is estopped from collecting B&O tax at a
different, higher classification where the taxpayer relied on such
instruction to its detriment. |
| |
10 WTD 270 |
88-310A |
|
DEPARTMENTAL HEARINGS -- SCOPE
OF REVIEW -- AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. Rules of evidence and strict judicial
protocol are neither present nor proper in a review conducted pursuant to RCW
82.32.160. |
| |
10 WTD 270 |
88.310A |
|
CONTESTED CASE HEARINGS. Tax appeal hearings are governed by RCW
82.32.160 and are not contested cases per RCW 82.34.010. |
| |
12 WTD 383 |
92-195 |
|
NONCLAIM PERIOD. When the taxpayer makes a timely request
for a refund which the Department denied, the taxpayer must either file a
petition in Superior Court or appeal that denial within the Department prior
to the expiration of the nonclaim period. The Department may not extend the
period for requesting a refund. |
| |
13 WTD 119 |
92-219ER |
|
APPEALS -- JUST AND LAWFUL
DECISIONS -- EX PARTE CONTRACTS. The
review proceedings authorized by Chapter 82.32.RCW are informal, non-APA,
internal review proceedings which are intended to achieve just and lawful results. Such proceedings are not governed by the
APA or Court rules of procedure and, by their nature entail ex parte
contracts and communications. |
| |
13 WTD 119 |
92-219ER |
|
APPEALS -- SUPPLEMENTAL
DETERMINATIONS -- PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION. Henceforth, unless expressly provided for
by statute or rule, the Department of Revenue will not issue supplemental
determinations under any circumstances. Where mistakes of fact or errors of
law can be identified, the appropriate administrative remedy is a petition
for reconsideration. |
| |
13 WTD 344 |
93-191 |
|
REFUNDS/CREDITS -- NONCLAIM -- OVERPAYMENTS -- DUTY OF AUDITOR TO IDENTIFY. The Revenue Act does not impose a duty on auditors to discover every
error in taxpayers' reporting during the course of an audit. Neither is the
nonclaim period tolled because an auditor has failed to discover an
overpayment during an audit. |
| |
13 WTD 344 |
93-191 |
|
REFUNDS/CREDITS -- NONCLAIM -- REFUND REQUEST -- UNDERESTIMATE OF AMOUNT. As a matter of policy, the Department will refund amounts which are
adequately described in a taxpayer's petition for refund, even if the exact
dollar amount has been underestimated and the underestimate is not discovered
until after the nonclaim period has passed. |
| |
16 WTD 112 |
96-135 |
|
MISCELLANEOUS: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. The Governor's partial veto of a bill is
part of the legislative process and must be considered in determining the
legislative intent. |
| |
16 WTD 112 |
96-135 |
|
VALIDITY
OF RULES. The Department will not
entertain challenges to its administrative rules through an administrative
appeal under WAC 458-20-100. |
| |
17 WTD 36 |
98-287R |
|
UNPUBLISHED DETERMINATIONS -- STARE DECISIS. Except for purposes of
collateral estoppel in subsequent proceedings involving the same taxpayer,
unpublished determinations are not precedent, may not be cited as such in
proceedings before the Department, and do not become part of the body of
administrative law governing Department actions. |
| |
17 WTD 64 |
97-121 |
|
AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE A
PROPERLY ADOPTED RULE. Generally, the
Department must follow its own rules. |
| |
17 WTD 64 |
97-121 |
|
AUTHORITY TO REACH CONCLUSIONS
CONTRARY TO THE LANGUAGE OF A PROPERLY ADOPTED RULE. When a rule substantially quotes a statute
that has been amended and the rule is not amended to reflect the new
statutory language, the Department must interpret the rule as if the new
statutory language were included therein and ignore those portions of the
rule that are inconsistent with the new statutory language. Partially
Overruling Det. No. 88-313, 6 WTD 285 (1988) to the extent that it reached a
conclusion contrary to the statutory language. |
| |
17 WTD 156 |
97-196 |
|
APPLICATION DUE DATE -- ESTOPPEL
-- COMMUNICATION -- FACTORS. The
Department was not estopped from enforcing the due date of a Distressed Area
Tax Deferral application even though the taxpayer claimed that it was given
incorrect, incomplete oral information by a Department employee and also
claimed that it was misled by a Departmental Special Notice. |
| |
17 WTD 359 |
98-065 |
|
WITNESS CREDIBILITY. The following are among the important
factors to be considered in evaluating witness credibility: (1) the opportunity and capacity of the
witness to observe the act or event, (2) the character and reputation of the
witness for truthfulness, (3) prior inconsistent statements or actions, (4) bias or lack thereof, (5) consistency
with or contradiction by other evidence, (6) inherent improbability, and (7)
demeanor of the witness. Citing Henry
Bacon Building Materials, Inc. v. State, BTA Docket No. 89-27, 10 WTD 223
(1991). |
| |
18 WTD 220 |
98-183 |
|
MISCELLANEOUS: B&O TAX -- SUBSTANCE OVER FORM. The doctrine of substance over form is not
generally available to a taxpayer to eliminate the tax consequences of the
taxpayer's structured form of the transaction. See Washington Sav-Mor Oil Co. v. State Tax
Comm'n, 58 Wn.2d 518, 521, 364 P.2d 440 (1961). |
| |
19 WTD 44 |
99-027 |
|
ESTOPPEL. A taxpayer may not rely on a letter from
the Department to an undisclosed third party. Furthermore, the taxpayer failed to show it detrimentally relied on
the letter. The taxpayer merely
possessed the letter. |
| |
19 WTD 54 |
99-056 |
|
RETAIL
SALES TAX - B&O TAX - ESTOPPEL - PRIOR AUDIT. The Department is not estopped from
assessing taxes on warranty repair income because it did not assess such
taxes in a prior audit due to oversight, inadvertence, neglect, etc. |
| |
19 WTD 423 |
99-011R |
|
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL—GOVERNMENT
ENTITY—ELEMENTS—BURDEN OF PROOF. Equitable estoppel claims against the government require proof: (1) of an admission, statement or act
inconsistent with a claim later asserted; (2) of reasonable reliance on that
admission, statement, or act by the other party; (3) of an injury to the
relying party if repudiation of the admission, statement, or act is allowed;
(4) that relief must be necessary to prevent a manifest injustice; and (5)
that the exercise of government functions will not be impaired as a
result. Each element must be proved by
clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Because each element was proven by clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence, the Department is estopped, except on a prospective basis, from
collecting wholesaling B&O tax on the direct or drop shipments. |
| |
19 WTD 447 |
99-147 |
|
IGNORANCE
OF TAX OBLIGATIONS - LIABILITY FOR TAX. The fact that the taxpayer is not aware that tax is due on a
transaction is not a valid defense to a valid tax assessment issued by the
Department. |
| |
19 WTD4 92 |
99-285 |
|
INTEREST
-- WAIVER -- REQUEST FOR WRITTEN OPINION -- FAILURE TO RESPOND. Neither RCW 82.32A.020 nor Rule 100
authorizes the Department to cancel or waive interest that may be causally
linked to the Department's failure to respond to a taxpayer's request for a
written opinion of future tax liability. RCW 82.32.105 does not authorize waiver or cancellation under that
circumstance either. |
| |
19 WTD 492 |
99-285 |
|
EQUITABLE
ESTOPPEL: INTEREST -- SILENCE. While
silence can work an equitable estoppel against the government, all elements
of an equitable estoppel must be met before the doctrine can apply. |
| |
19 WTD 497 |
99-302 |
|
PETITION
FOR CORRECTION OF NOTICE OF BALANCE DUE - TIMELY. Petitions filed more than thirty days after
the issuance of the balance due notices are not timely. The Department cannot consider the issues
raised in untimely petitions, and the petitions must be denied. |
| |
19 WTD 603 |
99-318 |
|
SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE -
CONVERSION TO REGULAR PROCEDURE. A tax
appeal, initially accepted as a small claims case, may be converted to
regular status where the issue presented is not a simple one. |
| |
19 WTD 670 |
99-351 |
|
PETITIONS FOR CORRECTION OF
ASSESSMENT - PETITIONS FOR REFUND - EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES. The opportunities to file a
petition for correction of assessment or a petition for refund are not
remedies that must be exhausted before seeking a remedy in a court of
competent jurisdiction. |
| |
19 WTD 670 |
99-351 |
|
PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF LEGISLATION. An administrative body
does not have the authority to determine the constitutionality of the law it
administers; only the courts have that power. |
| |
19 WTD 681 |
00-001 |
|
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX - ORAL
INSTRUCTIONS. The Department lacks
legal authority to waive the tax based on oral instructions. RCW 82.32A.020 only provides authority to
waive tax based upon reliance on specific, official written advice or written
reporting instructions from the Department. |
| |
19 WTD 694 |
00-007 |
|
B&O
TAX - IMPOSITION OF TAXES - AUTHORITY -- WAIVER OF - UNFAIR AND
INEQUITABLE. The Department of Revenue
is without authority to waive taxes lawfully imposed solely because they may
appear unfair or inequitable. |
| |
19 WTD 784 |
99-042 |
|
USE TAX - VEHICLE - ESTOPPEL
-ULTRA VIRES ACTS -INCONSISTENT STATEMENT. The Department is not estopped from collecting tax where the
petitioner has not shown that the Department made any statement that is
inconsistent with the tax being asserted. Further, even if the taxpayer's statement that he told a Department
employee he was a Washington resident but the employee nonetheless granted
him the nonresident exemption were credible, the Department would not be
estopped from collecting the tax because ultra vires acts cannot be a basis
to deprive the state of the power to collect taxes. |
| |
19 WTD 799 |
99-112 |
|
MISCELLANEOUS: ATTORNEY FEES. Title 82 RCW, the Revenue Act, contains no
provision for attorney fees. |
| |
20 WTD 1Â |
99-223 |
|
EQUAL PROTECTION -- SELECTIVE
ENFORCEMENT. Fact that another
taxpayer may not properly be reporting taxes is not grounds for overturning
an assessment, citing Frame Factory, v. Depart. of Ecology, 21 Wn. App. 50
(1978); accord Det. No. 93-16,13 WTD 170 (1993) and Det. No. 92-4, 11 WTD 551
(1992). |
| |
20 WTD 53Â |
00-099 |
|
REVIEW OF DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS -
ASSESSMENTS AND REFUNDS - EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. The review procedures authorized by RCW
82.01.060(4), 82.32.160, 82.32.170, and Rule 100 may be used by taxpayers to review
tax assessments and refund requests. However, there is no duty to exhaust administrative remedies with
regard to the Department's review processes before challenging the Department
in a refund action under RCW 82.32.180. |
| |
20 WTD 53Â |
00-099 |
|
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -- ADMINISTRATION OF STATUTE LAW -- PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES. An administrative body does not have the
authority to determine the constitutionality of the law it administers, but must
presume the statute is constitutional. |
| |
20 WTD 146Â |
99-106 |
|
SETTLEMENTS. Taxpayers do not have a right to have cases
settled under RCW 82.32.350 and Rule 100. Settlement is a discretionary decision of the Department. Settlement is not appropriate under Rule
100(10)(b), when the settlement offer is not based on the merits of the case. |
| |
20 WTD 183Â |
99-233E |
|
PUBLIC UTILITY TAX -- STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION. If nothing in the plain
meaning of a statute creates an ambiguity, no resort to legislative history
is appropriate. If a statute is
ambiguous, however, resort to legislative history appropriate. Successive legislative drafts, legislative
bill reports and fiscal notes are useful sources of legislative intent. |
| |
20 WTD 204Â |
00-080 |
|
WAIVER OF INTEREST -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT -- ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS -- UNREASONABLE
DELAY. The Department is not required
to waive interest because the hearing before the Appeals Division did not
take place within six months of the date of filing. Hearings before the Appeals Division of the
Department of Revenue are not adjudicative proceedings under the APA. Such hearings do not arise from a statute
requiring a hearing or a constitutional right. The Department does waive
interest beyond 12 months where the sole reason for the delay was for the
benefit of the Department. |
| |
20 WTD 410 |
01-005 |
|
EXCISE TAXES - CREDITING OR
COMPENSATING TAXPAYER FOR COSTS INCURRED. The Department cannot grant a credit, or otherwise compensate, a
taxpayer for out-of-pocket expenses the taxpayer incurs in connection with a
Department examination of the taxpayer's books and records, or in connection
with appeals within the Department. |
| |
20 WTD 415 |
01-023 |
|
MISC: EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL - REASONABLE
RELIANCE. In order for a taxpayer to
succeed in a claim of equitable estoppel it must prove, among other things,
that it reasonably relied on a statement made by the Department. Reliance on letters written by the Taxpayer
Information and Education Section for persons other than the addressee is not
reasonable. Likewise, reliance on
telephone conversations with unnamed Department personnel and refunds paid
but specifically made subject to future audit verification are insufficient
to establish equitable estoppel. |
| |
21 WTD 48 |
00-085 |
|
REVIEW
OF DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS - ASSESSMENTS AND REFUNDS - EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. The review
procedures authorized by RCW 82.01.060(4), 82.32.160, 82.32.170, and Rule 100
may be used by taxpayers to review tax assessments and refund requests. However, there is no duty to exhaust
administrative remedies with regard to the Department's review processes
before challenging the Department in a refund action under RCW
82.32.180. |
| |
21 WTD 48 |
00-085 |
|
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -- ADMINISTRATION OF STATUTORY LAW -- PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
STATUTES. An administrative body does
not have the authority to determine the constitutionality of the law it
administers, but must presume the statute is constitutional. |
| |
21WTD106 |
99-143R |
|
STATUTES -- CONSTRUCTION -- ASSUMING UNINTENTIONAL OMISSIONS. The
Department cannot assume the Legislature unintentionally left something out
of a statute and read the "omission" into the statute. |
| |
21WTD106 |
99-143R |
|
ISSUE
OF FIRST IMPRESSION; INDUSTRY-WIDE IMPACT. That an issue is one of first impression or has industry-wide impact
or significance does not allow the Department greater flexibility in
interpreting applicable tax statutes. |
| |
21 WTD 136 |
01-117 |
|
EXTRACTING B&O TAX -
INTEREST - SMALL HARVESTER - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The Department's assessment of B&O tax
and interest in 2001 is not time-barred against a small harvester of timber
whose gross proceeds exceeded $100,000 in 1997 for a harvest that occurred
that year. Furthermore, the
Department's records show the Department informed the taxpayer in 1997 of his
B&O tax liability. |
| |
21 WTD 212 |
01-049 |
|
RCW
82.32.350: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS -
METHODS - ACCORD AND SATISFACTION -- EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO
ALTERIUS. Under the judicial doctrine
of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the
legislature, in designating only one method of compromising Washington tax
liabilities under the Revenue Act, has clearly restricted taxpayers and the
Department from any other methods of doing so - including accord and
satisfaction under the provisions of Washington's Uniform Commercial
Code. |
| |
21 WTD 212 |
01-049 |
|
RCW 82.32.350: ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. Accord and satisfaction cannot occur when a
cover letter is clearly inconsistent with the claim of accord and
satisfaction notated on the check that it accompanies. North Bonneville v. Bencor Corp., 32 Wash.
App. 144, 646 P.2d 161 (1982). |
| |
21 WTD 254 |
01-170 |
|
RCW 82.32.160: PETITION FOR
CORRECTION OF ASSESSMENT - REQUIREMENT FOR TIMELY WRITTEN FILING. Taxpayers must file a written petition for
correction of a tax assessment, and they must file the petition within 30
days after issuance of the tax assessment, or within the period covered by
any extension given by the Department of Revenue. Any tax assessment for which a written
petition for correction is not timely filed shall become final. |
| |
21 WTD 318 |
02-0039 |
|
RCW
82.32A; ETA 419: TAX WAIVER - ORAL INSTRUCTIONS. The Department lacks legal authority to
waive tax based upon oral instructions.   |
| |
22 WTD 61 |
02-0048 |
|
TAX
-- PENALTIES - INTEREST - WARRANT - BIFURCATION OF. Where a warrant includes an amount
previously assessed against a taxpayer and an amount not previously assessed,
and the taxpayer appeals the warrant, only the propriety of the warrant will
be [reviewed] as to the first amount, whereas the merits of the assessment
will be [reviewed] vis-Ã -vis the second amount. |
| |
22 WTD 131 |
02-002 |
|
B&O TAX - SALES TAX - USE
TAX - REFUND -- PETITION - STATUE OF LIMITATIONS - EXTENSION. A petition for review requesting a refund
of taxes paid must be filed within four years after the close of the tax year
in which the taxes were paid. The
Department may not grant an extension of time to file a petition for review
requesting a refund of taxes paid. |
| |
22 WTD 131 |
02-002 |
|
B&O TAX - SALES TAX - USE
TAX - CREDIT ASSESSMENT - INCREASE ADJUSTMENT -- STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. A credit assessment will not be increased
from the amount originally credited for those years for which the statute of
limitations would have expired, unless a refund claim was filed or a waiver
executed prior to the expiration date. An assessment may be reduced after the expiration date, but not
increased. |
| |
22 WTD131 |
02-002 |
|
B&O TAX - SALES TAX - USE
TAX - OFFSET - TAX PROPERLY DUE. Different types of taxes and credits are considered together on
taxpayers' returns and in the Department's assessments to calculate the
amount of tax properly due or refundable. |
| |
23 WTD 6 |
02-0070R |
|
MISCELLANEOUS -- ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF A RULE. The Department's erroneous granting to
William Rogers, Co. of the benefit of the Rule 111 exclusion need not be
perpetuated by granting unrelated third parties the same erroneous
application. |
| |
23 WTD 79 |
03-0007R |
|
HEARING ON RECONSIDERATION -- REQUIREMENT. Neither RCW 82.01.060(4) nor WAC 458-20-228
(4)(a) requires a hearing on reconsideration. |
| |
23 WTD 160 |
02-0127 |
|
RAP
10.4(h): UNPUBLISHED APPELLATE DECISIONS - USE IN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
DETERMINATIONS: Taxpayers may not
cite, and the Department of Revenue will not consider, unpublished appellate
decisions for use in the Department's tax determinations. |
| |
23 WTD 206 |
04-0023E |
|
CONFIDENTIALITY
- EQUAL TREATMENT - DEPARTMENTAL ERRORS - UNPUBLISHED DETERMINATIONS. Even if other assisted living facilities
received determinations from the Department allowing exemption for their
income, we could not discuss those determinations with the taxpayer if those
determinations have not been published. Although equal treatment of similarly situated taxpayers is a
legitimate concern, we cannot discuss other taxpayers because of
confidentiality requirements. Further,
even if the taxpayer's concern should prove to be correct, the Department
need not perpetuate past errors by repeating them with respect to other
taxpayers. |
| |
23 WTD 243 |
03-0066R |
|
APPEALS - FAILURE TO FILE -
FINALITY. If a petition for correction
of an assessment is not filed within thirty days after issuance or within the
period covered by any extension, the assessment becomes final, and the
Department loses jurisdiction to accept a petition for correction. |
| |
24 WTD 134 |
02-154R |
|
ESTOPPEL - FAILURE TO DETECT
ERROR - RELATED CORPORATIONS. The
Department is not estopped from assessing tax on certain amounts although it
failed to detect a related corporation's failure to pay tax on these amounts
in a prior audit. A taxpayer's reliance on instructions given to another
taxpayer does not form the basis for estoppel. Further, the Department's failure to detect
an error in a prior audit does not estop the Department from assessing the
tax in a subsequent audit. |
| |
24 WTD 309 |
05-0006E |
|
ESTOPPEL
- WEBSITE - ORAL ADVICE. For a tax to
be cancelled based on estoppel, the Department must have made a
misrepresentation of a material fact upon which the taxpayer reasonably
relied to its detriment. A taxpayer's
reliance on a general statement on the Department's website does not provide
a basis for estoppel. Unsupported,
alleged conversations with departmental employees also do not provide a basis
for estoppel. |
| |
24 WTD 454 |
05-0066 |
|
ESTOPPEL
-- LACHES. DOR cannot grant relief on
the alleged equitable grounds of estoppel or laches in contravention of a
statutory requirement. Equitable
principles cannot be asserted to establish equitable relief in derogation of
statutory mandates. |
| |
26 WTD 78 |
03-0362R |
|
RULE 100; RCW
82.32A.020(2): B&O TAX - WRITTEN
INSTRUCTIONS - RELIANCE. B&O tax
on nursing home revenue received by a public hospital district will be waived
where the Department previously issued a written opinion of future tax
liability to the district advising in error that revenue from nursing homes
purchased by the district and operated as nonprofit corporations was exempt
from B&O tax. |
| |
26 WTD 169 |
06-0280 |
|
ETA
419: ORAL INSTRUCTIONS -
ESTOPPEL. The Department's
long-standing policy is that oral instructions alone do not provide the
quantum of proof necessary to sustain an estoppel claim. |
| OTHER: |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|