Det. No. 01-124, 24 WTD 102 (2005) – An advertising design company protests the assessment of "printing and publishing" and "service and other activities" business and occupation tax on its gross receipts from sales of advertising materials.
Det. No. 02-0030E, 24 WTD 108 (2005) – Companies that provide international telecommunications services protest the assessment of additional retail sales tax, seek a refund of the taxes collected and paid on such services, and seek to have Det. No. 89-174, 7 WTD 283 (1989) overruled.
Det. No. 02-0106, 24 WTD 115 (2005) – A consumer of brokered natural gas seeks a refund of use taxes it paid on the gas it purchased from out-of-state vendors and consumed in Washington.
Det. No. 02-0124, 24 WTD 124 (2005) – The lessee of a manufacturing plant, constructed before the lessee entered into the lease, appeals the assessment of deferred retail sales tax or use tax on the sales of materials and construction services consumed in the construction, contending the sales were exempt from retail sales tax or use tax under the manufacturing machinery and equipment (M&E) exemption.
Det. No. 02-0134, 24 WTD 129 (2005) – An organization generating electricity from wind requests exemption of construction charges for roads necessary to access its wind turbine towers and charges for a maintenance building that houses controls for the facility.
Det. No. 02-0154R, 24 WTD 134 (2005) – The taxpayers petition for reconsideration of Det. No. 02-154, in which we upheld the assessment of deferred sales or use tax on the taxpayers’ unreported “retainage.” We conclude that the Department is not estopped from assessing tax on the retainage and that the services performed by the workers were properly subject to retail sales tax.
Det. No. 02-0187R, 24 WTD 141 (2005) – A taxpayer seeks reconsideration of a decision sustaining the assessment of service business and occupation tax on consulting income paid to an S corporation wholly-owned by the taxpayer and reported by the taxpayer as his income for federal tax purposes.
Det. No. 02-0199, 24 WTD 147 (2005) – Taxpayer appeals the method the Audit Division used to calculate the value of products subject to extracting business and occupation tax.
Det. No. 02-0199R, 24 WTD 151 (2005) – Taxpayer appeals Det. No. 02-0199, which affirmed that all costs must be included when computing the value of product based on the cost of production. Rule 112 does not allow a taxpayer to pick and choose what costs it wishes to include when valuing a product by means of the cost of production.
Det. No. 03-0097E, 24 WTD 156 (2005) – Taxpayer requests a refund of the retail sales tax under the provisions of RCW 82.08.037, which allow for a seller a refund of retail sales tax previously paid on bad debts. Taxpayer also requests cancellation of use tax assessed on Taxpayer’s tangible personal property when it changed its credit union charter from federal to state.
Det. No. 03-0126, 24 WTD 163 (2005) – Building constructor appeals partial denial of its tax deferral application for a new office building.
Det. No. 03-0128, 24 WTD 168 (2005) – A temporary staffing service that provides temporary office workers to other businesses requests a refund of business and occupation tax it paid on the portion of its revenues that it received from its customers for the labor of those temporary workers.
Det. No. 03-0321, 24 WTD 176 (2005) – A manufacturer of frozen french fries, which uses water throughout the manufacturing process, protests a ruling that its purchase of a well and associated fixtures was subject to retail sales tax and not exempt from the tax as manufacturing machinery and equipment.
Det. No. 04-0113, 24 WTD 181 (2005) – A State A manufacturer of modular structures appeals the denial of a Washington “paid at source” deduction for the cost of materials on which it paid State A retail sales tax.
Det. No. 04-0138E, 24 WTD 187 (2005) – Seven corporations paid by U.S. Department of Energy to clean up nuclear waste in Washington request a refund of business and occupation taxes.
Det. No. 04-0162, 24 WTD 194 (2005) – The former owner of a commercial vessel, who sold it in 1999, requests refund of late payment and warrant penalties and interest assessed on the personal property taxes due on the vessel for 1999, contending he did not receive notification of the taxes due until after the warrant was issued, he had assumed his buyer had taken care of any tax liability, and he would have immediately paid the taxes had he known they were due.
Det. No. 04-0196E, 24 WTD 201 (2005) – Two companies engaged in the business of providing temporary staff to clients protest future reporting instructions issued by the Audit Division of the Department of Revenue requiring them to include in their gross income amounts clients paid to them for providing temporary staff.
Det. No. 04-0207, 24 WTD 212 (2005) – Taxpayer objects to the Department of Revenue’s conclusion that she was a Washington resident and to the assessment of use tax on her vehicle, which carried Oregon tags. We hold that she was not a Washington resident, and use tax was not due on her vehicle.
Det No. 04-0208, 24 WTD 217 (2005) – Taxpayer, a manufacturer of consumer products, contends that the Department of Revenue erred in denying a request for refund of business and occupation tax paid on sales of consumer products in Washington. Taxpayer contends that some sales should be dissociated from its Washington activities.
Det No. 04-0232, 24 WTD 230 (2005) – THIS WTD IS WITHDRAWN EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. SEE ETA 2011-3S.32. Taxpayer, a foreign company, manufactured products in a Foreign Trade Zone ("FTZ") located in State A. From there it sold and delivered products directly to its wholesaling customers in Washington. Taxpayer protests the imposition of business and occupation (B&O) tax on these sales, arguing that Washington’s B&O tax on goods coming from an FTZ is not only constitutionally prohibited, but is prohibited by the Department’s own rule.
Det No. 04-0252, 24 WTD 242 (2005) – An out-of-state manufacturer that sells goods to Washington retailers through an independent representative disputes the assessment of wholesaling business and occupation tax. Because the goods were resold in permanent retail establishments, the manufacturer’s Washington sales were not exempt. We sustain the Department’s assessment.
>> Complete list of WTDs