Washington Tax Decisions for 12/04/2020
|Det. No. 15-0036, 39 WTD 191 (2020)||12/04/2020||39WTD191.pdf||
An out-of-state video game development company protests a tax assessment in which it was assessed retailing B&O tax and retail sales tax. Taxpayer argued that it was not subject to taxation in Washington because its only in-state activity, participation at an annual three-day trade show in [Washington], did not create substantial nexus with Washington. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 18-0088, 39 WTD 198 (2020)||12/04/2020||39WTD198.pdf||
A company selling restaurant supplies and other packaging products protests the reclassification of sales reported as wholesale to retail due to the lack of reseller permits. We affirm the adjusted assessments as issued, because the Taxpayer has not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate the nature of the contested sales. The Taxpayer’s petition is denied.
|Det. No. 18-0283, 39 WTD 204 (2020)||12/04/2020||39WTD204.pdf||
A retailer protests the denial of its application for remittance of retail sales tax paid in connection with purchases of material-handling and racking equipment for use in its Washington warehousing facility. The retailer argues that its facility constitutes a distribution center for purposes of RCW 82.08.820 and amounts spent to purchase materials for use in the facility are qualifying purchases for purposes of the exemption set forth in that provision. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 18-0284, 39 WTD 208 (2020)||12/04/2020||39WTD208.pdf||
A Washington corporation seeks cancellation of an assessment of REET imposed as the result of its sale of a business. Taxpayer objects to the Department’s use of the county market value property tax assessment as the selling price of the real property after Taxpayer provided an asset allocation made under IRC § 1060. Taxpayer asserts that the value determined under its IRC § 1060 asset allocation represents the true and fair value of the real property for the purpose of calculating REET, and therefore the Department is precluded from using the county market value property tax assessment for this purpose. We deny Taxpayer’s petition.
|Det. No. 18-0293, 39 WTD 215 (2020)||12/04/2020||39WTD215.pdf||
An operator of mobile snack stands protests the assessment of service and other activities B&O tax on grounds that it was engaged in a retailing joint venture that paid the appropriate retailing B&O tax and retail sales tax, and the measure of tax assessed includes Taxpayer’s share of joint venture profits in error. We deny the petition.