Washington Tax Decisions

A company engaged in the business of providing proxy voting services to brokerage houses and banks petitions for correction of assessment of retail sales tax and retailing B&O tax on the processing fees and intermediary fees it charges its customers. We hold that the company’s proxy voting services are taxable under the service and other activities B&O tax classification for periods prior to July 26, 2009. However, we hold that the company’s proxy voting services are taxable as digital automated services for periods after July 26, 2009, and are therefore, subject to the retail sales tax and retailing B&O tax for those periods. . . . Taxpayer’s petition is granted in part and denied in part.

A physician group protests the denial of its request for refund of service and other activities B&O tax paid on receipts from the FEHBA and Medicare Advantage MA, federal insurance programs, which it asserts are preempted from taxation by federal law. We conclude that the Taxpayer has not established that Washington tax is preempted and deny the Taxpayer’s petition.

An out-of-state corporation that provides apartment listing services to property owners and property management companies protests the Department’s assessment [of] use tax/deferred sales tax on the toll-free number service purchased from a vendor. Taxpayer argues that the sales are not retail sales because the primary purpose of its purchases is to collect the data from the callers and, thus, the sales qualify for the data processing and information services [exclusion] under RCW 82.04.065(27)(a). We deny the petition.

A [taxpayer] sought review of the partial denial of its request for refund of 75 percent of the retail sales tax paid on the purchase and installation of a solar energy system. The taxpayer asserts that the Department improperly denied its refund, allowable under RCW 82.08.962 and WAC 458- 20-263, of tax paid on charges for electrical and structural engineering, electrical and building permits, a construction bond, plan review, project management and coordination, equipment rental, and a weather station with solar radiation monitoring. The taxpayer’s petition is denied.

A company that claimed a fruit and vegetable manufacturer [B&O] tax exemption, but failed to timely submit the required annual tax incentive survey, seeks review of the denial of its request for an extension to file the survey. The basis for the company’s Petition is that it experienced a significant departure of employees around the time of the due date for filing the survey due to a VSIP. We conclude that the significant loss of employees to a VSIP does not amount to circumstances beyond the control of the taxpayer pursuant to WAC 458-20-228 (“Rule 228”). Petition denied.

A company that sold a complete vegetable processing plant petitioned for reconsideration of Det. No. 06-0245, which denied the taxpayer’s request for refund of REET on the portion of the sales price attributable to M&E. In dispute is whether the items of M&E are real property fixtures or tangible personal property for purposes of REET. We grant in part and deny in part.

Taxpayer petitions for a reconsideration of the holdings in Determination No. 15-0093. On reconsideration, we reverse [one of] the holdings in Det. No. 15-0093, and hold that Taxpayer is entitled to deduct its separately stated direct mail delivery charges before calculating its B&O and retail sales tax liability. . . .

A taxpayer protests the assessment, by the Department, of REET on the transfer of a controlling interest in a Washington corporation. The taxpayer contends the corporation did not own real property in Washington at the time of the transfer. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.

A contractor engaged in construction petitions for the correction of assessment, contending the Department is barred by statute from assessing taxes for certain prior tax periods and, for the open tax periods, Taxpayer’s tax liability should be offset by a tax paid at source deduction. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.

Taxpayer sold a two-story concrete Class B office building and paid REET based on the total consideration paid. Taxpayer now petitions for a partial refund of the REET, claiming that the amount it paid exceeded the property’s “true and fair value.” We conclude that Taxpayer has failed to rebut the presumption that the total consideration actually paid was the property’s true and fair value. We deny Taxpayer’s petition.