|Det. No. 18-0205, 38 WTD 272 (2019)||38WTD272.pdf||
A construction contractor protests the Department’s disallowance of a retail sales tax exemption certificate that Taxpayer accepted for a contract to build agricultural employee housing. We grant Taxpayer’s petition in part and deny the petition in part.
|Det. No. 18-0194, 38 WTD 261 (2019)||38WTD261.pdf||
A Washington-based aerospace manufacturing business argues that it has shown that certain activities qualify for the B&O tax classification applicable to manufacturers or sellers of commercial airplane components manufactured by the seller. We remand the petition for an adjustment based upon Taxpayer’s timely submission of proof to the operating division which substantiates its qualification for the aerospace manufacturing B&O tax rate on the disputed transactions, consistent with the holding in this determination.
|Det. No. 18-0208, 38 WTD 278 (2019)||38WTD278.pdf||
Operators of 4-D rides protest the Department’s denial of their requests for refunds of retail sales tax remitted from ticket sales. The petitions for refund are denied.
|Det. No. 18-0202, 38 WTD 266 (2019)||38WTD266.pdf||
An out-of-state producer and supplier of enzyme reagents for use in life sciences research argues that, since the Department did not use a sampling methodology in assessing unreported retail sales tax, and associated penalties, the Department acted unreasonably. Petition denied.
|Det. No. 18-0180, 38 WTD 253 (2019)||38WTD253.pdf||
A restaurant business seeks review of an assessment of retail sales tax, retailing B&O tax, and evasion penalty. The taxpayer asserts that unreported sales were unreasonably estimated and the Department has not established the requirements for the imposition of the evasion penalty. The Department holds that the taxpayer failed to maintain suitable records and that the Audit Division reasonably estimated unreported sales and tax liability. The Department also holds that clear, cogent and convincing evidence established that the taxpayer intentionally evaded payment of tax and required imposition of the evasion penalty. The Department denied the taxpayer’s petition.