|Det. No. 15-0315, 35 WTD 457 (2016)||35WTD457.pdf||
A management company objects to assessments of tax for its transactions with a holding company that is commonly-owned, and further objects to the inclusion of certain amounts in the taxable measure for which it has provided no documented evidence that they should be exempt. The assessments are upheld.
|Det. No. 15-0299, 35 WTD 448 (2016)||35WTD448.pdf||
A Washington LLC appeals the assessment of use tax on a motor vehicle it purchased, registered, and licensed [out-of-state]. Petition denied. We conclude that the company is liable for use tax on the vehicle it purchased and licensed in another state, but uses in Washington.
|Det. No. 15-0297, 35 WTD 443 (2016)||35WTD443.pdf||
An insurance company and its wholly owned broker/dealer . . . appeal assessments of service and other activities B&O tax on grounds that the receipts are exempt as functionally related to insurance business. We deny the petitions.
|Det. No. 14-0243, 35 WTD 426 (2016)||35WTD426.pdf||
Information technology firm protests retail sales tax imposed on subscription-based access to its proprietary research library and other related services on the grounds that access to the proprietary research library is not a digital automated service because it primarily involves the application of human effort. The petition is denied in part and remanded in part.
|Det. No. 15-0255, 35 WTD 436 (2016)||35WTD436.pdf||
Members of a now defunct LLC, that operated an automobile dealership, protest a TFAA against them, stating that the LLC effected a timely EFT of the tax due and owing. The Department’s bank received the transfer, but subsequently returned the transferred funds because the LLC’s bank swept the LLC’s account of funds. We conclude that [Member A] and [Member B] are responsible for the LLC’s collected and unremitted retail sales tax. We find that [Member C] is not.
|Det. No. 15-0349, 35 WTD 477 (2016)||35WTD477.pdf||
An out-of-state seller of goods challenges the various penalties assessed in a tax assessment, arguing primarily that (1) that the delinquent penalty should have been assessed at a lower rate . . . . As to Taxpayer’s . . . argument, we deny the petition. . . .
|Det. No. 15-0345, 35 WTD 472 (2016)||35WTD472.pdf||
A sightseeing tour operator disputes the value the Department used in a use tax assessment against its crew vessel arguing that the Department should have used the value listed on the appraisal it provided. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 15-0340, 35 WTD 467 (2016)||35WTD467.pdf||
An out-of-state LLC that sells gluten free bread products to Washington customers protests the Department’s tax assessment arguing that it does not have substantial nexus with Washington State. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 15-0327, 35 WTD 462 (2016)||35WTD462.pdf||
A Pilates studio appeals an assessment of retailing B&O tax and retail sales tax, asserting that its Pilates classes are not physical fitness services classified as retail activities because the primary focus of the classes is instructional. The taxpayer’s petition is denied.
|Det. No. 15-0314, 35 WTD 451 (2016)||35WTD451.pdf||
A computer service provider petitions for correction of an assessment and a refund, arguing that the Department erred when reclassifying certain separately stated charges as retail sales. Petitioner alleges that the charges were de minimis relative to the business’s primary activity of providing help desk and consulting services, or were in relation to network-based services not subject to retail sales tax. Because the Department reclassified only line items on Taxpayer’s own invoices that indicated retail sales activity, and because Taxpayer has not shown that the activities should be classified differently, we deny the petition.