Washington Tax Decisions

An automotive maintenance and repair company protests the Department’s assessment of retail sales tax on certain sales of auto parts on the grounds that it sold the parts to a nonresident. The company also seeks a refund of retail sales tax collected from Washington customers on sales that occurred while both the company and the customer were outside the state. We find that because the company charged the nonresident more than the company’s costs for the parts and failed to provide adequate documentation regarding the nonresident’s residency, an adjustment of the assessment is not warranted. We also find that the company is not entitled to a refund of the allegedly erroneously-collected sales tax because it did not first refund the taxes to its customers. Petition denied.

A manufacturer of cancer treatment drugs protests imposition of hazardous substance tax on personalized brachytherapy radiation products that Taxpayer makes from [radioisotope], a hazardous substance. We grant Taxpayer’s petition and remand the case to the Audit Division for adjustment.

A property owner claims that the amount listed as the sale price on a sales agreement and a REET affidavit is not the true and fair value of property conveyed for the purpose of imposing REET because he already owned a portion of the property and did not pay for the portion he already owned. We grant Taxpayer’s petition.

A for-profit . . . college protests the assessment of B&O on tuition fees on grounds that the fees were deductible from its gross receipts. We deny the petition.

A taxpayer that plans to offer custom round trip sightseeing tours via water from Washington to [out-of-state] seeks review of a binding letter ruling that: (1) its purchase of a vessel was not exempt from retail sales tax under RCW 82.08.0262 because the taxpayer would be offering sightseeing tours; and (2) its purchases of fuel to be consumed outside of Washington are not exempt from retail sales tax under RCW 82.08.0261. We grant the petition.

A distributor of giftware, restaurant supplies, and other goods protests the assessment of retail sales tax on certain transactions where the customer did not have a reseller permit. The distributor argues, based on facts and circumstances, that the transactions were properly classified as wholesale sales. We grant the petition.

An out-of-state manufacturer of industrial enclosure and cooling solution products protests inclusion of special price agreement rebates in its measure of selling price subject to wholesaling B&O tax. Taxpayer contends that the special price agreement rebates are bona fide discounts excluded from the definition of selling price and, therefore, the measure of gross proceeds subject to B&O tax. We . . . deny Taxpayer’s petition . . . .

A solid waste collection business appeals the Department’s classification of part of its waste disposal activities as the rental of waste containers, subject to retail sales tax and retailing B&O tax. The business argues that those activities should instead be subject to the service and other activities B&O tax. The business also argues for waiver of interest and penalties. We grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand it in part.

A business protests the denial of a request for a refund of retail sales tax. The business collected the retail sales tax from clients on sales of personal training services, and remitted said taxes to the Department. The business later discovered that such services are not subject to retail sales tax. We find that the business is not entitled to a refund of the retail sales tax because it was the client, not the business, that paid the tax, and the business has not provided any evidence that it has refunded the taxes to the client. The petition is denied.

A real estate development company protests the Department’s denial of its request for a refund of REET paid on the sale of real property from the company to purchasers. The parties later rescinded the sale and the purchasers returned the property to the company in return for a refund of all consideration the purchasers had paid. We find that the transfer of the property back to the company following the rescission is an independent transaction and a rescission does not alter the fact that the initial sale to the buyers was subject to REET. Taxpayer’s petition is denied.

Taxpayer, a bottler of soft drinks, appeals the disallowance of the M&E retail sales and use tax exemption for equipment and labor spent on a bottling line located within Washington. The Department denied the exemption because of the delay in putting the line into full production. We grant Taxpayer’s petition finding the M&E exemption does not contain a time requirement in using the equipment at full capacity.

A married couple protests the Department’s assessment of REET. The couple argues it is eligible for the clearing title exemption for a quitclaim deeded transfer to their son. We deny the petition.

An individual petitions for refund of the Department’s assessed REET on a transfer of land in exchange for consideration made to settle a boundary line dispute. The individual asserts that the transfer is not subject to the tax because it was made solely to settle a boundary line dispute. We deny the petition.

An individual protests the imposition of REET on two transfers of real property from the individual to a LLC owned in part by the individual. Because the LLC paid the mortgage debt from the origination of the mortgage and continued to do so after the individual transferred the real property to the LLC, there was no consideration for the transfer. The petition is granted.

Taxpayer requests a refund for the assessment of REET paid on his transfer of interest in real property, by quitclaim deed, to his two sons. Taxpayer asserts that the transfer is not subject to REET because he purchased the property as his sons’ nominee. The Department denies the petition.

An out-of-state corporation engaging in online sales to customers in Washington State through a third-party online marketplace facilitation service and through their own website disputes assessments by the Department based on lack of nexus. Taxpayer contends it has no physical presence or inventory storage in Washington, and it has never maintained a stock of goods in Washington. We deny Taxpayer’s petition.

A taxpayer protests the Department’s use of the county’s assessed market value to determine the “selling price” for real estate excise purposes. The taxpayer argues that the selling price should be the price paid for the property. We grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand for adjustment.