Blog Archives

Peck v. AT&T Mobility

by

Docket No. 85581-1 (from King Case No. 09-2-45435-3)  Facts:  Petitioner Jared Peck purchased three cellular telephones and a monthly service plan for each telephone from respondent AT&T Mobility.  The service agreement that Peck signed for each plan included a clause stating that, in addition to the cost for the monthly service fee and other optional plan features, a regulatory cost recovery surcharge would also be imposed to recoup business and occupation taxes.  Peck subsequently filed suit against AT&T Mobility on grounds that it is prohibited by the business and occupation tax statute (Washington Revised Code §82.04.500) from recouping business and occupation taxes by adding a regulatory cost recovery surcharge.  AT&T Mobility removed the case to federal district court, where it was granted summary judgment.  Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of Washington the question of whether the surcharge is prohibited by §82.04.500. Continue reading →

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company v. Department of Revenue

by

Docket No. 85556-1 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 39417-1)  Facts:  Respondent Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company produces marine bunker fuel for foreign consumption at its refinery near Anacortes.  Under Washington Revised Code §82.04.433, proceeds from the foreign sale of oil products may be deducted in calculating liability for business and occupation taxes on oil products.  This deducation was claimed by Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company in its tax returns for both its business and occupation tax on wholesaling and retailing and its business and occupation tax on manufacturing.  After the Department of Revenue’s appeals division ruled that the deduction does not apply to business and occupation taxes on manufacturing, Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company petitioned the Superior Court for Thurston County for a declaratory judgment that the deduction is not limited to business and occupation taxes on wholesaling and retailing.  In the interim, the legislature enacted a retroactive clarifying amendment to §82.04.433 that expressly limits the deduction to business and occupation taxes on wholesaling and retailing.  The superior court granted summary judgment for the Department of Revenue. Continue reading →

Washington v. Comenout

by

Docket No. 85067-4 (from Pierce Case No. 08-1-04680-1 & 08-1-04682-8)  Facts:  Petitioner Robert Comenout, an enrolled member of the Tulalip Tribes, operates the Indian Country Store on trust allotment land located outside of the boundaries of any Indian reservation.  Comenout was charged in the Superior Court for Pierce County with engaging in the business of selling cigarettes without a license, unlawful possession or transportation of unstamped cigarettes, and theft.  Comenout moved to dismiss the charges on grounds that the state of Washington lacks jurisdiction.  The trial court denied the motion. Continue reading →

Flight Options, L.L.C. v. Department of Revenue

by

Docket No. 84207-8 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 39517-7)  Facts:  Petitioner Flight Options, L.L.C., a company which manages charter and fractional ownership programs for a fleet of private aircraft, petitioned the Superior Court for Thurston County for a declaratory judgment that the respondent Department of Revenue lacks the authority to assess property taxes on its aircraft given that they do not operate in the state of Washington pursuant to fixed routes and regular schedules. Continue reading →

Washington Imaging Services, L.L.C. v. Department of Revenue

by

Docket No. 84101-2 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 38247-4)  Facts: Respondent Washington Imaging Services, L.L.C. filed suit against the petitioner Department of Revenue in the Superior Court for Thurston County, asserting that it is entitled to a refund of the business and occupation taxes that had been assessed upon the portion of its receipts that it paid to Overlake Imaging Associates, whose radiologists interpret the medical images generated by Washington Imaging Services, pursuant to a contractual agreement. Continue reading →

Qualcomm, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

by

Docket No. 83673-6 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 37718-7)  Facts: Seeking a refund of business and occupation taxes that it had paid under protest, petitioner Qualcomm, Inc. filed suit against the respondent Department of Revenue in the Superior Court for Thurston County, asserting that the satellite tracking service it provides to trucking companies, which allows trucking companies to monitor the location and operation of their vehicles and allows drivers to send and receive messages, constitutes an information service Continue reading →

Val-Pak of Western Washington v. Department of Revenue

by

Docket No. 83426-1 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 36977-0)  Facts: Petitioner Val-Pak of Western Washington, a regional distributor of Val-Pak envelopes containing coupons and advertising, filed suit against the respondent Department of Revenue in the Superior Court for Thurston County seeking a declaratory judgment that income derived from distributing Val-Pak envelopes should, pursuant to Washington Revised Code §82.04, be taxed at the lower periodical or magazine business and occupation tax rate Continue reading →