|Det. No. 15-0042R, 35 WTD 174 (2016)||35WTD174.pdf||
[Taxpayer] petitions for reconsideration of Det. No.. 15-0042, 34 WTD 169 (2016), which affirmed an Assessment of Successorship Liability imposed on Taxpayer after it acquired all of the assets of a business, against which the Department made an assessment within six months after receiving Taxpayer’s written notice of the sale. In Det. No. 15-0042 we concluded that Taxpayer was a successor to predecessor’s liability. Taxpayer timely filed for reconsideration. We deny Taxpayer’s petition for reconsideration.
|Det. No. 15-0042, 35 WTD 169 (2016)||35WTD169.pdf||
[Taxpayer] appeals an Assessment of Successorship Liability imposed after it acquired all of the assets of a business from [Predecessor], against which the Department made an assessment within six months after receiving the taxpayer’s written notice of the sale. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 15-0246, 35 WTD 209 (2016)||35WTD209.pdf||
A business that operates a vocational school in Washington petitions for refund of B&O tax on grounds that it qualifies for the tuition fees deduction in RCW 82.04.4282. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.
|Det. No. 15-0218, 35 WTD 206 (2016)||35WTD206.pdf||
An out-of-state web development company appeals the denial of its request for a refund of taxes. Taxpayer contends that it should not be liable for excise taxes in Washington in 2014 because it was only marginally over the nexus threshold for 2013. We deny Taxpayer’s petition.
|Det. No. 15-0205, 35 WTD 202 (2016)||35WTD202.pdf||
Home manufacturer protests instructions that it must report periodic payments when received, rather than when the contract is complete. The petition is denied.
|Det. No. 15-0202, 35 WTD 198 (2016)||35WTD198.pdf||
An out-of-state company that hires audio and visual independent contractor technicians to perform services for clients on a temporary basis in Washington protests the Department’s assessment of B&O tax claiming it lacks sufficient contacts with Washington to be subject to B&O tax. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 15-0190, 35 WTD 192 (2016)||35WTD192.pdf||
An out-of-state corporation appeals B&O taxes assessed on sales of its products delivered into Washington. The corporation contends that, because it had no property or employees in Washington, it was not obligated to pay Washington B&O taxes. Because independent businesses demonstrated the corporation’s products and solicited orders here on the corporation’s behalf, the corporation had sufficient activity in Washington (nexus), and is liable for B&O tax on its receipts and income. Petition denied.
|Det. No. 15-0151, 35 WTD 182 (2016)||35WTD182.pdf||
A previously unregistered, out-of-state, party supplies wholesaler and retailer disputes assessments of retail sales tax, retailing B&O tax, wholesaling B&O tax, litter tax, interest, and penalties on the basis that it did not have nexus with Washington, internet sales should be dissociated from those originating from a representative’s visits to Washington, and it relied – to its detriment – on incorrect oral advice allegedly received from a Department agent. In addition, Taxpayer requests abatement of penalties because it acted in good faith in relying on the alleged oral advice and did not intend to defraud. Petition denied.
|Det. No. 15-0107, 35 WTD 178 (2016)||35WTD178.pdf||
A taxpayer appeals the assessment of service and other activities B&O tax, penalties, and interest on income the Department disallowed as deductible advances. The taxpayer’s petition is denied.
|Det. No. 14-0259, 35 WTD 160 (2016)||35WTD160.pdf||
Provider of training services petitions for correction of a letter ruling in which the Department instructed it to attribute income earned from its in-person and online training workshops to the location of each individual workshop participant at the time the training is provided. We revise the letter ruling. With respect to in-person workshops, a reasonable method of proportionally attributing income is to the location where the workshops take place. With respect to online workshops, income should be attributed to the participant’s permanent office location because a reasonable method of proportionally attributing receipts is not available.