|Det. No. 20-0136, 41 WTD 108 (2022)||41WTD108.pdf||
A mill operator claims payments made to a janitorial company for sweeping its facility are not subject to retail sales tax . . . . We grant taxpayer’s petition for refund, in part, limited to the amount of [deferred sales] . . . tax imposed on its purchase of janitorial services.
|Det. No. 20-0128, 41 WTD 100 (2022)||41WTD100.pdf||
An out-of-state wholesaler protests an assessment of business and occupation tax. The wholesaler argues that it did not have nexus sufficient for Washington to assert tax on its business. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 20-0127, 41 WTD 95 (2022)||41WTD95.pdf||
A taxpayer protests imposition of the REET on a transaction it claims was exempt as a mere change in identity. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.
|Det. No. 20-0120, 41 WTD 90 (2022)||41WTD90.pdf||
Taxpayer disputes the Department of Revenue’s denial of a VETC against B&O tax. We deny the taxpayer’s petition.
|Det. No. 20-0108, 41 WTD 82 (2022)||41WTD82.pdf||
A construction company disputes its tax assessment, arguing that the audit should have been based on cash basis rather than accrual basis accounting, and that its claimed wholesale sales should not have been reclassified as retail sales. The taxpayer also asserts that it had a client that paid subcontractors directly for certain services they performed on a construction project where taxpayer acted as the prime contractor, and it never received these payments. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 20-0100, 41 WTD 73 (2022)||41WTD73.pdf||
Taxpayer disputes the assessment of REET on its purchase of certain real property located in Washington, arguing that the Department overstated the fair market value of the property for REET purposes, because it used the county assessed value on the tax rolls rather than the sale price that was negotiated between the parties. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 20-0097, 41 WTD 67 (2022)||41WTD67.pdf||
A LLC that owns property in Washington protests the assessment of REET on one of its members’ acquisition of a controlling interest in the company. It asserts: that the transfer was exempt from REET under RCW 82.45.010(3)(j) and WAC 458-61A-208(5) as an execution of a judgment, that there was no sale price upon which to assess REET, and that there was no consideration. We conclude that REET is due on the transfer. The taxpayer’s petition is denied.
|Det. No. 20-0087, 41 WTD 61 (2022)||41WTD61.pdf||
A taxpayer disputes the assessment of use tax and penalties on his purchase of a travel trailer claiming that, because the trailer was purchased in another state and was subsequently sold to a nonresident company from [out of state], the purchase should be exempt from use tax in Washington. . . . The taxpayer also claims that [we should waive penalties because] he relied on incorrect information obtained from an internet website. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 20-0074, 41 WTD 55 (2022)||41WTD55.pdf||
A LLC seeks cancellation of an assessment of REET levied as the result of its owner’s acquisition of a controlling interest in the company. The company objects to the Department’s use of the county market value property tax assessment as the selling price of the real property it held at the time of sale. We deny the petition.