|Det. No. 16-0403, 36 WTD 435 (2017)||36WTD435.pdf||
A computer sales and repair shop petitions for correction of an assessment of retail sales and B&O tax, contending that it properly paid tax on amounts net of the retail sales tax collected from its customers because its prices were advertised as “tax included.” The weight of the evidence supports Taxpayer’s position that all sales were advertised as tax-included. Accordingly, Taxpayer’s petition is granted.
|Det. No. 16-0365, 36 WTD 425 (2017)||36WTD425.pdf||
A seller of propane and propane accessories to residential and commercial customers protests the assessment of use tax on two propane tanks Taxpayer acquired from a third party. Taxpayer argues that it acquired the propane tanks at issue for the purpose of reselling them and, therefore, has not “used” the tanks [as a consumer]. We grant the petition and remand for appropriate adjustment.
|Det. No. 17-0050, 36 WTD 439 (2017)||36WTD439.pdf||
A Washington retailer protests the imposition of retail sales tax on sales the retailer alleges were made to non-Washington residents for use outside Washington, arguing it properly documented sales of tangible personal property made to nonresidents for use outside of Washington. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 16-0380, 36 WTD 429 (2017)||36WTD429.pdf||
An equipment financing company seeks review of an assessment of retail sales tax on leases and sales of equipment and vehicles . . . . First, the company claims that third-party loan servicers collected and remitted the applicable retail sales tax on equipment leases. Second, the company claims that although it did not collect retail sales tax when selling used vehicles at auction, purchasers of the used vehicles should have paid use tax when registering the vehicles with other state agencies. . . . The petition is denied in part, granted in part, and remanded for adjustment based on records provided.
|Det. No. 16-0169, 36 WTD 419 (2017)||36WTD419.pdf||
A store developer disputes an assessment that stems, in large part, from a finding that the store developer provided “services rendered in respect to” construction when it accepted responsibility for assembling and building-out store fixtures. The store developer asserts that, at most, it assembled light shelving and attached slat walling – both of which activities constitute less than 1% of its services. Petition denied.