Rules and *Ancillary Document Review Checklist

Rules and Ancillary Document Review Checklist

(This form must be filled out electronically.)

All responses should be in bold format.

Document Reviewed (include title): WAC 458-12-390 State levy—Fertilizers and insecticides held by farmers—Inventory.

Date last adopted: April 14, 1969

Reviewer: James A. Winterstein

Date review completed: July 1, 1999

Is this document being reviewed at this time because of a taxpayer or business association request? (If "YES", provide the name of the taxpayer/business association and a brief explanation of the issues raised in the request). YES NO X

Type an "x" in the column that most correctly answers the question, and provide clear, concise, and complete explanations where needed.

1. Explain the goal(s) and purpose(s) of the document: This rule was intended to give assessors guidance regarding the taxation of fertilizers and insecticides used by farmers in farming operations. The rule provides that fertilizers and insecticides that were brought to the farm pursuant to a previously planned schedule and used promptly in accordance with good farming practice were not taxable if the farmer enclosed a statement with his or her personal property listing so stating. If the fertilizer or insecticide was held in storage as of January 1, then it was included in the farmer’s inventory.

2. Need:

YES

NO

x

Is the document necessary to comply with the statutes that authorize it? (E.g., Is it necessary to comply with or clarify the application of the statutes that are being implemented? Does it provide detailed information not found in the statutes?)

x

Is the document obsolete to a degree that the information it provides is of so little value that the document warrants repeal or revision?

x

Have the laws changed so that the document should be revised or repealed? (If the response is "yes" that the document should be repealed, explain and identify the statutes the rule implemented, and skip to Section 10.)

x

Is the document necessary to protect or safeguard the health, welfare (budget levels necessary to provide services to the citizens of the state of Washington), or safety of Washington’s citizens? (If the response is "no", the recommendation must be to repeal the document.)

Please explain. The rule was adopted at a time when inventory, including such things as fertilizer and insecticide held by farmers, was generally taxable. Beginning in 1974, inventory was no longer fully taxable and was defined so as to exclude fertilizer and insecticide held for the farmer’s own use. However, personal property was, and is, still taxable, but it is taxable only if it is held by the farmer, or other taxpayer, on January 1. This rule set up a process that was never authorized by statute, that was not necessary, and that is outmoded at this time.

3. Related ancillary documents, court decisions, BTA decisions, and WTDs: Complete Subsection (a) only if reviewing a rule. Subsection (b) should be completed only if the subject of the review is an ancillary document. Excise Tax Advisories (ETAs), Property Tax Bulletins (PTBs) and Audit Directives (ADs) are considered ancillary documents.

(a)

YES

NO

x

Are there any ancillary documents that should be incorporated into this rule? (An Ancillary Document Review Supplement should be completed for each and submitted with this completed form.)

x

Are there any ancillary documents that should be repealed because the information is currently included in this or another rule, or the information is incorrect or not needed? (An Ancillary Document Review Supplement should be completed for each and submitted with this completed form.)

x

Are there any Board of Tax Appeal (BTA) decisions, court decisions, or Attorney Generals Opinions (AGOs) that provide information that should be incorporated into this rule?

x

Are there any administrative decisions (e.g., Appeals Division decisions (WTDs)) that provide information that should be incorporated into the rule?

(b)

YES

NO

Should this ancillary document be incorporated into a rule?

Are there any Board of Tax Appeal (BTA) decisions, court decisions, or Attorney Generals Opinions (AGOs) that affects the information now provided in this document?

Are there any administrative decisions (e.g., Appeals Division decisions (WTDs)) that provide information that should be incorporated into the document?

If the answer is "yes" to any of the questions in (a) or (b) above, identify the pertinent document(s) and provide a brief summary of the information that should be incorporated into the document.

PTB 68-1 (Assessments of fertilizers and insecticides held by farmers) and PTB 90-3 (Assessment of supplies) were reviewed in conjunction with this rule. PTB 68-1 can simply be repealed. PTB 90-3 addresses the assessment of supplies for a number of different types of taxpayers and should be retained at this time.

4. Clarity and Effectiveness:

YES

NO

Is the document written and organized in a clear and concise manner?

Are citations to other rules, laws, or other authority accurate? (If no, identify the incorrect citation below and provide the correct citation.)

Is the document providing the result(s) that it was originally designed to achieve? (E.g., does it reduce the need for taxpayers to search multiple rules or statutes to determine their tax-reporting responsibilities, help ensure that the tax law and/or exemptions are consistently applied?)

Do changes in industry practices warrant repealing or revising this document?

Do any administrative changes within the Department warrant repealing or revising this document?

Please explain.

5. Intent and Statutory Authority:

YES

NO

Does the Department have sufficient authority to adopt this document? (Cite the statutory authority in the explanation below.)

Is the document consistent with the legislative intent of the statutes that authorize it? (I.e., is the information provided in the document consistent with the statute(s) that it was designed to implement?) If "no", identify the specific statute and explain below. List all statutes being implemented in Section 9, below.)

Is there a need to recommend legislative changes to the statutes being implemented by this document?

Please explain.

6. Coordination: Agencies should consult with and coordinate with other governmental entities that have similar regulatory requirements when it is likely that coordination can reduce duplication and inconsistency.

YES

NO

Could consultation and coordination with other governmental entities and/or state agencies eliminate or reduce duplication and inconsistency?

Please explain.

7. Cost: When responding, consider only the costs imposed by the document being reviewed and not by the statute.

YES

NO

x

Have the qualitative and quantitative benefits of the document been considered in relation to its costs? (Answer "yes" only if a Cost Benefit Analysis was completed when the rule was last adopted or revised.)

Please explain.

8. Fairness: When responding, consider only the impacts imposed by the document being reviewed and not by the statute.

YES

NO

Does the document result in equitable treatment of those required to comply with it?

Should it be modified to eliminate or minimize any disproportionate impacts on the regulated community?

Should the document be strengthened to provide additional protection to correct any disproportionate impact on any particular segment of the regulated community?

Please explain.

9. LISTING OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: (Use "bullets" with any lists, and include documents discussed above. Citations to statutes, ancillary documents, and similar documents should include titles. Citations to Attorneys General Opinions (AGOs) and court, Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), and Appeals Division (WTD) decisions should be followed by a brief description (i.e., a phrase or sentence) of the pertinent issue(s).)

Statute(s) Implemented: None

Ancillary Documents (i.e., ETAs, PTBs, and ADs): PTB 68-1 and PTB 90-3

Court Decisions: None

Board of Tax Appeals Decisions (BTAs): None

Administrative Decisions (e.g., WTDs): None

Attorney General’s Opinions (AGOs): None

Other Documents (e.g., special notices or Tax Topic articles, statutes or regulations administered by other agencies or government entities, statutes, rules, or other documents that were reviewed but were not specifically relevant to the subject matter of the document being reviewed):

Review Recommendation:

Amend

X Repeal

Leave as is

Begin the rule-making process for possible revision. (Applies only when the
Department has received a petition to revise a rule.)

Incorporate ancillary document into a new or existing rule. (Subject of this

review must an ancillary document and not a rule.)

Explanation of recommendation: (If recommending an amendment of an existing rule, provide only a brief summary of the changes you’ve identified/recommended earlier in this review document.) This rule, as adopted in 1969, provided for a procedure that was never authorized by statute or other law. Although the rule reached the proper conclusion that insecticides and fertilizers described in the rule were exempt from taxation, the process required to claim the exemption was nowhere provided in law. The rule was unnecessary at the time of its adoption, and is presently unnecessary.

PTB 68-1 should be repealed, and PTB 90-3 should be retained. (See ancillary document review supplements for these bulletins.)

Manager action: Date: ________________

_____ Reviewed recommendation _____ Accepted recommendation

_____ Returned for further action

Comments:

YES	NO

	x	Is the document necessary to comply with the statutes that authorize it? (E.g., Is it necessary to comply with or clarify the application of the statutes that are being implemented? Does it provide detailed information not found in the statutes?)
x		Is the document obsolete to a degree that the information it provides is of so little value that the document warrants repeal or revision?
x		Have the laws changed so that the document should be revised or repealed? (If the response is "yes" that the document should be repealed, explain and identify the statutes the rule implemented, and skip to Section 10.)
	x	Is the document necessary to protect or safeguard the health, welfare (budget levels necessary to provide services to the citizens of the state of Washington), or safety of Washington’s citizens? (If the response is "no", the recommendation must be to repeal the document.)

YES	NO
	x	Are there any ancillary documents that should be incorporated into this rule? (An Ancillary Document Review Supplement should be completed for each and submitted with this completed form.)
x		Are there any ancillary documents that should be repealed because the information is currently included in this or another rule, or the information is incorrect or not needed? (An Ancillary Document Review Supplement should be completed for each and submitted with this completed form.)
	x	Are there any Board of Tax Appeal (BTA) decisions, court decisions, or Attorney Generals Opinions (AGOs) that provide information that should be incorporated into this rule?
	x	Are there any administrative decisions (e.g., Appeals Division decisions (WTDs)) that provide information that should be incorporated into the rule?

YES	NO
		Should this ancillary document be incorporated into a rule?
		Are there any Board of Tax Appeal (BTA) decisions, court decisions, or Attorney Generals Opinions (AGOs) that affects the information now provided in this document?
		Are there any administrative decisions (e.g., Appeals Division decisions (WTDs)) that provide information that should be incorporated into the document?

YES	NO
		Is the document written and organized in a clear and concise manner?
		Are citations to other rules, laws, or other authority accurate? (If no, identify the incorrect citation below and provide the correct citation.)
		Is the document providing the result(s) that it was originally designed to achieve? (E.g., does it reduce the need for taxpayers to search multiple rules or statutes to determine their tax-reporting responsibilities, help ensure that the tax law and/or exemptions are consistently applied?)
		Do changes in industry practices warrant repealing or revising this document?
		Do any administrative changes within the Department warrant repealing or revising this document?

YES	NO
		Does the Department have sufficient authority to adopt this document? (Cite the statutory authority in the explanation below.)
		Is the document consistent with the legislative intent of the statutes that authorize it? (I.e., is the information provided in the document consistent with the statute(s) that it was designed to implement?) If "no", identify the specific statute and explain below. List all statutes being implemented in Section 9, below.)
		Is there a need to recommend legislative changes to the statutes being implemented by this document?

YES	NO
		Could consultation and coordination with other governmental entities and/or state agencies eliminate or reduce duplication and inconsistency?

YES	NO
	x	Have the qualitative and quantitative benefits of the document been considered in relation to its costs? (Answer "yes" only if a Cost Benefit Analysis was completed when the rule was last adopted or revised.)

YES	NO
		Does the document result in equitable treatment of those required to comply with it?
		Should it be modified to eliminate or minimize any disproportionate impacts on the regulated community?
		Should the document be strengthened to provide additional protection to correct any disproportionate impact on any particular segment of the regulated community?