Washington Tax Decisions

The purchaser of a motor vehicle requests a partial refund of retail sales tax paid on the purchase of a new motor vehicle. The purchaser asserts that he is entitled to a reduction in the “selling price” of the new motor vehicle because he traded in another motor vehicle as consideration for the new motor vehicle, and his motor vehicle broker served to umbrella the transactions. Petition denied.

A limited liability company that owns a 38.14 percent interest in an apartment complex protests the assessment of REET on 38.14 percent of the assessed value of that apartment complex as a result of Taxpayer’s two members selling their combined one hundred percent interest in Taxpayer to a third party. Taxpayer argues that the amount of consideration that the third party paid for the one hundred percent interest in Taxpayer should be treated as the true and fair value of the 38.14 percent interest that Taxpayer owns in the apartment complex. We deny the petition.

A Washington publishing company that provides services within and outside Washington disputes retail sales tax assessed on receipts for products purchased by customers outside of Washington. The company also protests the Department’s calculation of “throw-out” income when apportioning its income for B&O tax purposes. The petition is granted in part, denied in part, and remanded for adjustment.

A healthcare services provider petitions for reconsideration of Det. No. 15-00328, which held that the provider was liable for use tax on a contract for information technology and software support services, because neither the de minimis exclusion nor the true object exclusion from the definition of a bundled transaction applied. The petition for reconsideration is denied.

A jewelry gallery protests an assessment of service and other B&O on the gallery’s commission income. The gallery argues it does not have to pay taxes on amounts received as commission for sales of goods sold on consignment. We conclude that Taxpayer has not overcome the presumption that it is selling goods in its own name, is subject to retailing B&O tax and retail sales tax on the proceeds of the sales, and remand the assessment to the Operating Division to adjust it accordingly.

Taxpayer protests the Department of Revenue’s denial of Taxpayer’s application for a CTRC, arguing that its late application submission was caused by its internal personnel changes that prevented Taxpayer from gathering the information needed to timely complete its CTRC application. We deny Taxpayer’s petition.

Taxpayer sold an office building and paid REET on the total consideration paid. Taxpayer now petitions for a partial refund of the REET, claiming that the amount it paid exceeded the property’s “true and fair value.” We conclude that Taxpayer’s initial REET Refund Request was timely filed, but that it failed to rebut the presumption that the total consideration actually paid was the property’s true and fair value. We deny Taxpayer’s petition.

A grocery store with pharmacies in a number of its retail stores, that made sales of prescription drugs, seeks a refund of retailing B&O tax paid on these sales asserting that this tax is a prohibited indirect tax on the insurance carriers participating in the FEHBA, Medicare Advantage, and TRICARE, federal health insurance programs, from whom it received payment. We conclude that the B&O tax is not preempted and affirm the denial of the request for refund.