Other Languages(1) In determining the "true and fair value" of beer which is still in storage in the brewer's warehouse, the federal excise tax on beer is not to be regarded as an element of its value. (2) The exemption from ad valorem property taxation of ore or metal shipped from out the state to any smelter or refining works within the state, while in process of reduction or refinement and for thirty days thereafter, which is provided for by RCW 84.36.181, extends to alumina on the basis that this substance is an ore. (3) Barley malt which is stored in the elevators of a malting business is not exempt from taxation as "grain or flour" within the meaning of RCW 84.36.140.
(1) RCW 41.26.040(3) does not prohibit a city or town from using property tax revenues obtained under RCW 41.16.060 for municipal purposes other than the funding of firemen's pensions in those cases where such other uses are permitted by the terms of the latter statute. (2) A municipality which first created a full time, paid fire department after March 1, 1970, the date upon which the LEOFF system became operative, is not authorized to levy the additional property tax provided for in RCW 41.16.060.
In the event of a sale of community college real property by the State Board for Community College Education pursuant to RCW 28B.50.090(12), the proceeds of that sale are not required, under existing law, to be received, kept and disbursed by the state treasurer but, instead, they may be retained by the college as local funds and expended without a specific legislative appropriation.
RCW 84.52.069(2) authorizes certain taxing districts to levy a regular property tax for emergency medical care and medical services. RCW 84.55.010 establishes the 106 percent limit which is applicable to regular property tax levies. The 106 percent limit applies to the emergency medical care levy after the first year.
1. Article 7, section 1, of the Washington Constitution, provides that all taxes on real property be uniform. House Bill 1297 which authorizes payments to certain people, calculated with reference to the taxes levied on their primary residence, does not violate the uniformity requirement. 2. Article 11, section 9, of the Washington Constitution, prohibits releasing or discharging state taxes on a county, its inhabitants or its property. The payment of assistance from funds appropriated for that purpose by the Legislature in House Bill 1297 does not constitute a release or discharge of the state property tax levied for the support of the common schools. 3. Article 8, sections 5 and 7, of the Washington Constitution, prohibit gifts of public funds. The payment of assistance to certain citizens authorized by House Bill 1297 is a gift of public funds because the payments do not carry out a fundamental governmental function and there is no consideration for the payments. 4. Article 8, sections 5 and 7, of the Washington Constitution, do not prohibit gifts of public funds that are necessary for the support of the poor. House Bill 1297 authorized assistance to persons with $30,000 or less of combined disposable income. The question of whether House Bill 1297 constitutes assistance to the poor is, to some degree, a factual question and we cannot say precisely where the court will draw the line between assistance to the poor and an impermissible gift. Some people with incomes of less than $30,000 are, undoubtedly, poor. However, there is substantial doubt whether an individual with an annual income of $30,000 and no dependents is poor. It is unlikely that a court would permit such a person to receive assistance pursuant to House Bill 1297.
When a school district is dissolved and all of its territory is transferred to another district effective August 31, 2007, and when the transferred territory is made subject to excess levies approved by the receiving district before the transfer, the transferred territory is included within the receiving district’s tax base for the levy made in 2008 to be collected in 2009, but not earlier.
(1) When improvements are added to publicly owned property which has been leased to a person who would not be exempt from ad valorem property taxes if that person owned the property involved, those improvements are subject to ad valorem property taxation as personal property of the private lessee if title to the improvements resides with the private lessee until expiration of the lease. (2) Where, on the other hand, title to the improvements vest immediately upon their affixation or completion in the public lessor, such improvements are exempted by statute from ad valorem taxation and the private lessee's expenditures for the improvements are subject to the leasehold excise tax.
(1) A leasehold interest which would have qualified for a property tax exemption under the terms of § 11 (1), chapter 187, Laws of 1973, 1st Ex. Sess., as of January 1, 1973, and which has not been "renegotiated" within the meaning of § 3 (3) at any time in 1973, is exempt from such taxation for that assessment year with respect to property taxes due and payable in 1974; however, this same leasehold interest would not qualify for such an exemption from property taxes due and payable in 1974 if the leasehold had been "renegotiated" between January 1, 1973, and July 16, 1973, the effective date of chapter 187, supra. (2) In the determination of "economic rent" as defined in § 3 (1), chapter 187, supra, a county assessor is not conclusively bound by a determination of "contract rent" made by an impartial arbitration board or, in the case of creation of a new leasehold interest, by open public bidding ‑ although this would be one of the relevant circumstances which the assessor is to consider. (3) Where there is a change in consideration to be paid by the lessee to the lessor but the term of the lease is shortened rather than extended, a "renegotiation" does not occur within the meaning of § 3 (3) of chapter 187, supra. (4) In order for a leasehold interest granted by an Indian to a non-Indian to be exempt from property taxation under § 11 (8), chapter 187, supra, the real property which is subject thereto must be that land of an Indian or Indian tribe that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restraint against alienation imposed by the United States.
(1) The 106% limitation on regular property taxes imposed by RCW 84.55.010 does not apply to the taxes levied by a city for the maintenance of its local improvement guaranty fund under RCW 35.54.060. (2) Property taxes levied by a city for the maintenance of its local improvement guaranty fund, however, may not in any year exceed five percent of the outstanding obligations guaranteed by the fund and further may not, in any event, be in excess of a sum which is sufficient, with other sources of the fund, to pay warrants issued against the fund during the preceding fiscal year and establish a balance therein.
1. For the purposes of Laws of 2008, ch. 278, § 1(3), a person who offers to purchase a distressed home, and no more, does not thereby become a “distressed home consultant.” 2. For the purposes of Laws of 2008, ch. 278, §§ 2, 3, a real estate licensee would likely become a “distressed home consultant” if the real estate licensee contacts the distressed homeowner’s lender to arrange a “short sale” in which the homeowner’s debt to the lender will be discharged for the amount of the sale price of the home when the sale price is less than the homeowner owes on the loan. 3. For the purposes of Laws of 2008, ch. 278, §§ 2, 3, a real estate licensee becomes a “distressed home consultant” by performing licensed activities in connection with a real estate transaction when the property involved is a “distressed home,” if the licensee (1) solicits the owner; (2) offers to perform a service on the owner’s behalf; and (3) represents that the service will satisfy one or more of the conditions listed in Laws of 2008, ch. 278, § 1(3)(a).