Washington Tax Decisions for 07/01/2020
|Det. No. 15-0030, 39 WTD 103 (2020)||07/01/2020||39WTD103.pdf||
A company that processes credit and debit transactions for merchants and banks protests the assessment of service and other activities B&O tax on interchange fees paid to card-issuing banks for each credit card transaction. We hold that the company is responsible for paying the interchange fees, that the interchange fees are includable in its merchant discount revenues, and that the interchange fees are therefore part of its taxable gross income. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.
|Det. No. 16-0207, 39 WTD 111 (2020)||07/01/2020||39WTD111.pdf||
A provider of nursing services seeks review of a tax assessment of use tax and/or deferred sales tax on various medical “kits” Taxpayer purchased and used in the course of its services without paying retail sales tax or use tax. Taxpayer argues that the kits in question are exempt from retail sales tax and use tax. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 16-0341, 39 WTD 122 (2020)||07/01/2020||39WTD122.pdf||
A warehousing goods provider protests use tax assessed by the Department on a . . . tractor, claiming retail sales tax was paid when a private party provided the funds to purchase the tractor several years prior. The petition is granted.
|Det. No. 18-0187, 39 WTD 126 (2020)||07/01/2020||39WTD126.pdf||
An in-state seller of vehicle repair machines and equipment protests the Department’s assessment of retailing and wholesaling B&O tax and retail sales tax. Taxpayer argues that the Department incorrectly [assessed tax on sales of tangible personal property that was received by the purchaser outside the state. We deny Taxpayer’s petition.
|Det. No. 18-0232, 39 WTD 130 (2020)||07/01/2020||39WTD130.pdf||
A person who transferred a 50% interest in property that he recently purchased at auction and remitted REET based on the sales price protests the assessment of additional tax based on the higher value for the property recorded on the county assessor’s rolls. The Special Programs Division asserted that the transfer was not an arm’s length transaction; however, no evidence has been presented [by the Special Programs Division,] that the sales price (which was based on half of the auction price) did not establish the fair market value of the property at the time of transfer or that there was any relationship or agreement between the parties that would support characterizing the subsequent transfer as anything other than an arm’s length transaction. We find that tax was remitted based on the most recent selling price for the property and grant the Taxpayer’s petition.
|Det. No. 18-0246, 39 WTD 134 (2020)||07/01/2020||39WTD134.pdf||
A construction contractor protests the Department’s assessment of retail sales tax and retailing B&O tax assessed on the amount of the total construction project cost instead of contract sum. Taxpayer further asserts it is entitled to additional “tax paid at source” deductions. We grant Taxpayer’s petition in part and deny in part.
|Det. No. 18-0248, 39 WTD 139 (2020)||07/01/2020||39WTD139.pdf||
Taxpayer conducts bowling tournaments. The tournament fee consists of an entry fee, lineage fee, and prize money. Taxpayer challenges the Department’s issuance of Balance Due adjustments. We sustain the Balance Due adjustments.
|Det. No. 18-0252, 39 WTD 145 (2020)||07/01/2020||39WTD145.pdf||
A construction company contests an assessment, arguing the assessment is based on inaccurate and incomplete information, and wrongly reclassified expenditures made in furtherance of non-governmental projects as government contracting expenses for purposes of the use tax/deferred retail sales tax. We deny the petition.