|Det. No. 11-0298, 32 WTD 16 (2013)||32WTD16.pdf||
A LLC (the taxpayer) doing business as a motor contract carrier protests the assessment of public utility tax (PUT) under the motor transportation business classification on gross income earned for the intrastate hauling of recyclable materials for an affiliated LLC. Holding: Gross income earned by the taxpayer from such intrastate hauling is subject to motor transportation business PUT. Decision: Petition denied and assessment affirmed.
|Det. No. 11-0006, 32 WTD 7 (2013)||32WTD7.pdf||
A sole proprietorship (the taxpayer) that operates a dinner club/theatre protests the assessment of retailing business and occupation tax and retail sales tax on the single non-itemized admission charge that includes both musical entertainment and dinner. Held: the taxpayer was selling prepared meals and musical entertainment as a bundled transaction that is subject to retail sales tax on the full price. Petition denied.
|Det. No. 12-0021, 32 WTD 22 (2013)||32WTD22.pdf||
A solar power system seller appeals a Taxpayer Information and Education section letter ruling that a special purpose entity does not qualify for the cost recovery incentive payment under RCW 82.16.120 and WAC 458-20-273 (Rule 273), where it leases the roof space of a customer of a light and power company, installs its renewable energy system on the roof and sells the energy produced by the system to the roof owner. We affirm the letter ruling and deny the appeal.
|Det. No. 10-0344 32 WTD 1 (2013)||32WTD1.pdf||
A corporation that provided escrow services protests the assessment of retail sales tax and retailing business and occupation tax on fees it charged its customers for services such as courier delivery, reconveyances of deeds of trust, and wire transfers that it purchased in its own name from third parties. Held, we affirm the assessment and deny the taxpayer’s petition.
|Det. No. 11-0063, 32 WTD 11 (2013)||32WTD11.pdf||
Taxpayer appeals an assessment of real estate excise tax on a controlling interest transfer, arguing that the county assessor’s valuation used by the Department does not reflect the true and fair value of the property. Taxpayer’s appeal is denied.