Washington Tax Decisions

Title Date Document Description
Det. No. 18-0124, 38 WTD 75 (2019) 38WTD75.pdf

An individual petitions for correction of an assessment of use tax. The individual argues she is exempt from use tax because she bought the vehicle while she was not a resident of Washington. The petition is denied.

Det. No. 18-0018R, 38 WTD 64 (2019) 38WTD64.pdf

A Washington State corporation engaged in log hauling to destinations in and out of Washington seeks reconsideration of Determination No. 18-0018, which held that Taxpayer was not eligible for claimed deductions to gross income for hauling logs to export yards taxable under the Log Hauling Over Public Highways PUT classification. During the audit, the Department’s auditor reportedly told Taxpayer if it obtained an export facility exemption certificate from qualifying export yards, then hauls made to those yards might qualify for the deduction. Taxpayer obtained the certificate from one export yard covering March 2016, and on that basis sought refund of tax assessed on all hauls covered by the certificate. Taxpayer’s petition for reconsideration is denied.

Det. No. 17-0239, 38 WTD 57 (2019) 38WTD57.pdf

A residential mortgage lender protests inclusion in gross income of the business certain fees required by federal government-sponsored enterprises upon purchase of residential mortgages when determining its service and other activities B&O tax liability. We deny taxpayer’s petition.

Det. No. 17-0229, 38 WTD 46 (2019) 38WTD46.pdf

Taxpayer, an internet retailer, challenges assessment of B&O tax and retail sales tax. Taxpayer disputes that it had sufficient physical presence within Washington to create the substantial nexus to allow Washington to tax its sales. Taxpayer also maintains that certain of its sales should be dissociated from its Washington activity. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.

Det. No. 16-0231, 38 WTD 35 (2019) 38WTD35.pdf

An out-of-state company disagrees with the Tax Ruling it received from the Department, informing Taxpayer that it provides a dating service, which is a retail business activity subject to Washington’s Retailing B&O tax under RCW 82.04.050(3), and that it must charge retail sales tax on the charges its Washington customers pay for that service under RCW 82.08.020. We affirm the Tax Ruling.

Det. No. 18-0040, 38 WTD 71 (2019) 38WTD71.pdf

A payroll processing services provider protests the Department’s assessment of service and other activities B&O tax. Taxpayer argues that all of its receipts are excluded from the measure of B&O tax. We deny the petition.

Det. No. 17-0249, 38 WTD 60 (2019) 38WTD60.pdf

A corporation protests the amount of estimated cigarette remedial penalty imposed for sale of single-stick cigarettes, asserting that the sales estimated by the LCB are too high. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.

Det. No. 17-0233, 38 WTD 52 (2019) 38WTD52.pdf

A distributor that sells pre-packaged snacks to retailer customers protests the disallowance of cash and trade discount deductions Taxpayer originally claimed for “off invoice” discounts that it gave to its retailer customers when selling products to such customers. Taxpayer argues that the discounts were given to its customers without the expectation of anything in return from those customers. We deny the petition.

Det. No. 17-0173, 38 WTD 38 (2019) 38WTD38.pdf

A buffet restaurant disputes assessments of tax and penalties resulting from an estimate of cash sales. The restaurant asserts that the Department erred in estimating the percentage of cash sales by observing customer payments and calculating an average percentage of the frequency at which customers paid in cash, instead of selecting an industry average percentage. The restaurant also asserts the Department has not shown that it intended to evade paying taxes. Petition denied.

Det. No. 14-0307R, 38 WTD 29 (2019) 38WTD29.pdf

A provider of cloud-based services [asserts] . . . that its services . . . constitute nontaxable “internet access” under the ITFA. [In Det. No. 14-0307, the Department held to the contrary. On reconsideration, the Taxpayer] argues that the Department should instead follow the broader interpretation of "internet access" by the [Out-of-State 1] and [Out-of-State 2] tax authorities that rendered rulings to the contrary. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.