Washington Tax Decisions for 01/31/2018
| Title | Date | Document | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Det. No. 16-0230, 37 WTD 001 (2018) | 01/31/2018 |
 37WTD001.pdf |
An asphalt and aggregate manufacturer and road paver protests the Department’s assessment of use tax and manufacturing B&O tax arguing the Department incorrectly valued asphalt and aggregate products it manufactured and used in public road construction projects. Taxpayer also disputes the Department’s disallowance of the manufacturers’ M&E exemption for a canvas covering it purchased to shelter recycled asphalt. We remand the petition in part and deny it in. |
| Det. No. 16-0337, 37 WTD 015 (2018) | 01/31/2018 |
37WTD015.pdf |
A Washington state corporation disputes the Department’s assessment of successorship liability for the unpaid taxes of a defunct business, based on Taxpayer’s acquisition of the business’s assets. We conclude that Taxpayer is a successor and is liable for the unpaid taxes of its predecessor. We further conclude that Taxpayer has not met its burden of proving that the fair market value of the assets it acquired from its predecessor is less than $50,000. Therefore, Taxpayer may not limit its successorship liability to the fair market value of the acquired assets. We deny the petition. |
| Det. No. 16-0366, 37 WTD 021 (2018) | 01/31/2018 |
37_WTD021.pdf |
A real estate broker, that is authorized to arrange third-party vendors to perform maintenance work on properties owned by a bank, appeals the assessment of retail sales tax and retailing B&O tax on the maintenance expenses paid to the third-party vendors directly by the bank. The petition for correction of assessment is denied. |
| Det. No. 17-0106, 37 WTD 028 (2018) | 01/31/2018 |
37WTD028.pdf |
A construction company objects to reclassification of its design services as services rendered in respect to construction and retail sales under RCW 82.04.051. The taxpayer asserts that at the time it executed the design contract it was not contemplated by the parties that the taxpayer would be awarded the subsequent construction contract. . . . The taxpayer’s petition is denied. |
| Det. No. 17-0146, 37 WTD 036 (2018) | 01/31/2018 |
37WTD036.pdf |
A taxpayer that renovated a facility to relocate a laboratory objected to the disallowance of the high technology retail sales and use tax deferral for portions of the project. The taxpayer asserted that an unfinished area should have been excluded in apportioning common area costs. The taxpayer also asserted that the area used for developing a new type of nuclear reactor qualifies for the deferral as development of an alternative energy source. The Department denies the petition. |
| Det. No. 17-0168, 37 WTD 042 (2018) | 01/31/2018 |
37WTD042.pdf |
A retailer of OTP disputes an estimated assessment of tobacco products tax, moist snuff tax, and cigar tax on unlicensed purchases of OTP resulting from a WSLCB investigation. The retailer asserts that the Department overestimated the tax due for the audit period by failing to account for the age of the OTP found during the investigation. Taxpayer also asserts that the Department disclosed its successor’s confidential tax information by sending [Taxpayer] the assessment. |
| Det. No. 17-0169, 37 WTD 049 (2018) | 01/31/2018 |
37WTD049.pdf |
A firm in the business of providing bed and breakfast services and venues for events protests the imposition of retail sales tax and retailing B&O tax on its income. . . . The petition is denied. |
| Det. No. 17-0196, 37 WTD 053 (2018) | 01/31/2018 |
37WTD053.pdf |
Taxpayer protests the assessment of additional REET, based on the assessed value of the property, and contends that REET was correctly paid on the total consideration received. We conclude that the sale at a 66% discount was not at the true and fair value and affirm REET assessed on the assessed value of the property. The Taxpayer’s refund petition is denied. |