Washington Tax Decisions

A fitness and training facility designed for athletic performance enhancement appeals an assessment of retail sales tax on the basis that it provides specialized coaching in running and movement, and not simply personal training. Petition denied.

A [taxpayer] appeals a tax ruling that its purchase of LOX for use in its wastewater treatment process is subject to retail sales tax. The [taxpayer] appealed the ruling, asserting that its ruling request did not contain sufficient facts regarding its use of LOX in the manufacture of a mulch-like biosolids product, and that its purchase of LOX for this purpose is exempt from retail sales tax, pursuant RCW 82.04.050(1)(a)(iii) and WAC 458-20-113 (Rule 113) because it is used in manufacturing a new product for sale and becomes an ingredient or component of the product. The taxpayer’s petition is granted.

A [credit bureau] protests the Department’s assessment of retail sales tax and B&O tax under the retailing and wholesaling classifications. The taxpayer argues that its sales were either exempt as digital goods used solely for a business purpose or were predominantly wholesale sales, and that they should not be sourced to Washington. We deny the petition.

A company that offers cloud-based services that automate the creation and delivery of customized outbound high volume faxes and emails for its customers, objects to a Department ruling that its activities are taxable as telecommunications and digital automated services. Taxpayer contends that it is providing data processing services taxable under the service and activities classification of the B&O tax, or, in the alternative, that its email activities are entirely exempt under the ITFA. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.

An aerospace manufacturer appeals the Department’s denial of its refund request, based on reclassification of its business activities in a prior tax period to the preferential aerospace manufacturing B&O tax classification and the allowance of an aerospace B&O tax credit for that period. The Department denied the refund request on the basis that the manufacturer had failed to timely file its required annual report for the disputed period, and was therefore, not entitled to the tax benefits for that period. We conclude that the annual report was not timely filed and deny the petition.