business and occupation tax

On March 26, 2019, the Washington Court of Appeals held that a pharmacy benefit management company’s payments from clients (e.g., health maintenance organizations, health insurers, etc.) for the value of prescription drugs, were subject to the Washington B&O tax. The taxpayer manages the clients’ prescription drug benefit programs and performs activities, including contracting with third-party

By Chelsea Marmor and Jonathan Feldman

The Washington Administrative Review and Hearings Division of the Department of Revenue found that an out-of-state diamond and gold wholesaler was subject to the business and occupation (B&O) tax based on in-state consigned property. The wholesaler consigned jewels to Washington jewelry retailers for five days at a time, during

By Chelsea Marmor and Open Weaver Banks

The Administrative Review and Hearings Division at the Washington Department of Revenue (the Division) determined that administrative activities qualify as business activities for purposes of applying Washington’s throw-out rule under the Washington business and occupation (B&O) tax. The taxpayer, a single member LLC, performed airplane certifications on aircraft

A recent US Supreme Court decision on surcharges strengthened taxpayers’ First Amendment rights when deciding how they present pass-through fees and taxes to their customers.

  • The Supreme Court held that a New York statute prohibiting a seller from imposing a credit surcharge was a speech regulation, subject to heightened scrutiny, because it regulates how retailers

By Zack Atkins and Tim Gustafson

The Washington State Department of Revenue ruled that an out-of-state baker whose only in-state “presence” was its use of in-state independent commissioned sales representatives to solicit orders had substantial nexus with Washington and therefore was subject to the state’s business and occupation (B&O) tax. The taxpayer contracted with the

By Charles Capouet and Andrew Appleby

The Washington Supreme Court held that drop shipments and sales from out-of-state are subject to the Washington business and occupation (B&O) tax even when an in-state office was not involved in placing or completing the sales. A wholesaler of electronic components and computer technology worldwide sold products through its

By Alla Raykin and Jonathan Feldman 

An administrative law judge (ALJ) held that a taxpayer’s activities in Washington were not selling, soliciting or negotiating insurance in the state, but rather marketing other in-state insurance companies’ products and receiving commissions from those marketing materials. Accordingly, the taxpayer was not eligible for the lower business & occupation

By Chris Mehrmann and Amy Nogid

The Washington State Supreme Court held that a car dealership’s earnings from a “dealer cash” incentive program, offered by the manufacturer, American Honda Motor Company, to dealers to stimulate sales of certain car models within a specific time period, are taxable under the catchall provision of the business and

By Mike Kerman and Open Weaver Banks

The Washington Court of Appeals held that for local business and occupation (B&O) tax purposes, a securities broker with employees in its Seattle office must source to Seattle the receipts from commissions for services performed by the employees via phone and Internet. Under the city ordinance implementing the

By Evan M. Hamme and Madison J. Barnett

The Washington Court of Appeals upheld a broad application of the Washington Business and Occupation (B&O) tax to sales between an out-of-state seller and out-of-state purchasers when the products are delivered in Washington. Although the taxpayer maintained a research and product development facility in Washington, none of