Washington Tax Decisions

A recycling facility operator in Washington appeals use tax assessed on machinery and equipment purchased for use in the taxpayer’s facility. The taxpayer argues that the sorting and bundling of recyclable materials constitutes a manufacturing operation under RCW 82.08.02565 and any machinery and equipment used in this operation is exempt from retail sales tax and use tax. We uphold the assessment.

A nonprofit corporation that provides emergency rescue coordination, support services, training, and education for the licensing and certification of emergency rescue personnel for local fire departments and hospitals petitions for a refund of B&O tax on the grounds that it is exempt as a “health or social welfare organization.” The petition is granted.

A company that provides logging services for timber harvesters, and occasionally logs some of its own timber, objects to the Department of Revenue’s assessment of deferred retail sales and/or use tax on a feller buncher it uses in its logging operations to cut and bunch trees, arguing that the feller buncher is used to primarily to sort cut trees and forward them. We deny the taxpayer’s petition, and find taxpayer’s purchase and use of the feller buncher is not exempt from deferred retail sales and/or use tax under the machinery and equipment (M&E) exemption.

The taxpayer, an Indian owned corporation operating as a general contractor, seeks reconsideration of Det. No. 10-0307. We affirm the holding in Det. No. 10-0307, that the taxpayer’s purchase of capital assets and routing delivery of those assets through Indian country to the taxpayer’s plant outside Indian country does not qualify for exemption under WAC 458-20-192 (Rule 192), and deny the petition.

Landowners protest the imposition of B&O tax, contending that payments received under a “Mineral Lease” are really exempt rental payments for granting exclusive rights to possess the property. The petition is denied.

Taxpayer appeals an assessment of forest excise tax on red cedar shake and shingle blocks, arguing that it correctly reported its red cedar shake and shingle blocks in Scribner Decimal C log scale. Further, Taxpayer argues that it should not have been classified and assessed forest excise tax as a “large harvester.” We deny Taxpayer’s appeal.