Washington Tax Decisions

A logger protests the assessment of use tax on the purchase of a bulldozer used in its logging operations. The logger argues the bulldozer qualifies for the M&E use tax exemption because it is “used directly” in a manufacturing operation by providing physical support for manufacturing equipment. However, the logger also uses the bulldozer for non-manufacturing purposes and we find that the logger failed to prove that the bulldozer meets the “majority use” requirement of the M&E exemption. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.

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.

Taxpayer designs, develops, and operates automated cold storage warehouses within the United States and Europe. These “high-bay” warehouses store and retrieve palletized chilled and frozen goods mechanically via an advanced automated system. Taxpayer provided information regarding its plans to construct a new cold storage warehouse in . . . Washington. Taxpayer asked the Department “to determine if Taxpayer qualifies for the warehouse exemption remittance for retail sales tax purposes pursuant to RCW 82.08.820,” and, if so, “to confirm the application of the exemption to each item shown in the proposed investment budget attached to the Ruling request as Exhibit A.”

A Washington corporation petitions seeking correction of an audit assessment by the Department. In its petition, Taxpayer asserts that amounts it received from an affiliated business were not taxable income but were instead owner investment funds. Taxpayer argues that these amounts were previously taxed as income to the affiliated business and this represents a double tax on the same amounts. Taxpayer also contests the Department’s coding of this income for local sales tax purposes, contending that, if it is recognizable as income, the related taxable activity should be coded to a different location. We deny Taxpayer’s petition.

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.