|Det. No. 18-0280, 39 WTD 185 (2020)||39WTD185.pdf||
Taxpayer protests the assessment of use tax/deferred sales tax [imposed by] the Audit Division of the Department, [which] determined that Taxpayer’s construction of a building did not qualify for a high unemployment county tax deferral because construction of the building began before the Department issued the tax deferral certificate. The assessment is affirmed.
|Det. No. 18-0272, 39 WTD 175 (2020)||39WTD175.pdf||
The purchaser of a hotel and furnishings at a sheriff’s sale protests the measure of TPP subject to use tax using comparison sales prices instead of values reported by taxpayer on its REET Affidavit. We deny taxpayer’s petition.
|Det. No. 18-0256, 39 WTD 166 (2020)||39WTD166.pdf||
A LLC protests the Department’s rescission of the company’s High Unemployment County Sales and Use Tax Deferral certificate because the company did not construct the qualified building included in the approved application. Taxpayer argues that its failure to construct the qualified building should not be a basis for rescinding the deferral because its abandonment of construction of the qualified building was due to an unforeseeable condition. We deny the Taxpayer’s petition.
|Det. No. 18-0254, 39 WTD 152 (2020)||39WTD152.pdf||
The sole member of a now-defunct construction company petitions for the correction of TFAA . . . . During the company’s life, it collected retail sales tax from its customers, but failed to remit the taxes to the Department. Prior to the company’s dissolution, the Department issued four tax warrants. . . . [W]hen the company was dissolved, the Department pursued the member personally for the outstanding balances pursuant to RCW 82.32.145. The member argues that the company was unable to pay its tax debt due to financial hardship caused by its customers failing to pay for work the company performed. Petition denied.
|Det. No. 20-0040, 39 WTD 188 (2020)||39WTD188.pdf||
A business that was previously assigned to report it taxes on a quarterly basis asks the Department to reconsider its recent decision requiring [the business] to now report its taxes on a monthly basis, asserting that the change in reporting frequency would present a costly burden. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 18-0276, 39 WTD 179 (2020)||39WTD179.pdf||
A Washington-based business engaging in aerospace product development argues that it qualifies for certain aerospace incentive B&O tax rates, and the B&O tax credit for aerospace product development. We grant the petition in part and deny it in part.
|Det. No. 18-0267, 39 WTD 171 (2020)||39WTD171.pdf||
Taxpayer seeks review of the partial denial of its request for refund of 75% of the retail sales tax paid on the purchase and installation of a solar energy system. Taxpayer asserts that the Department improperly denied its refund request, allowable under RCW 82.08.962 and WAC 458-20-263 (“Rule 263”), of tax paid on charges for the design, engineering, and permitting for a solar system that generates electrical energy. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.
|Det. No. 18-0255, 39 WTD 156 (2020)||39WTD156.pdf||
An out of state corporation engaging in online sales to customers in Washington State through a third-party online marketplace facilitation service disputes assessments by the Department based on lack of substantial nexus. Taxpayer contends it has no physical presence or inventory storage in Washington, and it has never maintained a stock of goods in Washington. Taxpayer argues that the digital assignment of third-party inventory located in Washington to Taxpayer by Facilitator’s electronic inventory management system, for purpose of Facilitator’s delivery of orders to Taxpayer’s Washington customers, does not provide sufficient basis for substantial nexus with Washington. We deny Taxpayer’s petition.