Disaster Relief: Revenue will work with businesses that cannot file or pay their taxes on time due to a natural disaster. Learn more about disaster relief.
|Det. No. 18-0032, 38 WTD 097 (2019)||38WTD097.pdf||
A dairy operation protests the assessment of use tax/deferred retail sales tax. Taxpayer argues that the subject sales are exempt from taxation as improvements to qualifying livestock nutrient management facilities. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 17-0248, 38 WTD 082 (2019)||38WTD082.pdf||
A seller and lessor of vehicles petitions for review of . . . , retail sales tax assessed on purchases of car wash services . . . and rental car tax on rentals of unassigned cars to employees. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.
|Det. No. 18-0036, 38 WTD 101 (2019)||38WTD101.pdf||
A residential and commercial solid waste collection service company petitions for review of the denial of its application for CAFCV tax credits. The Department denied its application after concluding that the company failed to submit the final documentation required to qualify for the credit within fifteen days of receiving the vehicles included in its application as required by statute. The company asserts that the Department should accept its application because it submitted the final documentation within fifteen business days from receiving the vehicles . . . . We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 18-0021, 38 WTD 087 (2019)||38WTD087.pdf||
An internet-based company that matches music teachers and potential students within and outside Washington disputes the Department calculation of “throw-out” income when apportioning its income for B&O tax purposes. Taxpayer also requests attorney’s fees, claiming it was required to hire counsel in order to resolve its dispute with the Department. The petition is granted in part, denied in part, and remanded for adjustment.
|Det. No. 16-0132, 38 WTD 079 (2019)||38WTD079.pdf||
A company that provides rental of water treatment systems equipment to construction companies, disputes a Tax Ruling that assumed the company was using the equipment at the construction site to provide consultation services, claiming that it does not monitor nor analyze the water being treated. Taxpayer asks for a ruling based on the fact that it strictly rents the equipment to its customers. The ruling is modified.