United States: Washington Supreme Court Upholds Retroactive Application Of Amendment To B&O Tax Exemption

The Washington Supreme Court held that the retroactive application of the legislature's amendment to a Business & Occupation (B&O) tax exemption revising the definition of "direct seller's representative" to conform to the Washington Department of Revenue's interpretation of the exemption did not violate a taxpayer's rights under due process, collateral estoppel, or separation of powers principles.1 The intervening, retroactive application of the amendment to the law made the company ineligible for the tax exemption. While the taxpayer argued that it should continue to be eligible for the exemption based on successful prior litigation on the issue, the Court rejected this argument pointing out that the prior decision was not applicable because it involved a different tax period than the case at hand.

Background

Washington imposes the B&O tax on businesses for "the act or privilege of engaging in business activities" in the state.2 The law must specifically provide for any exemptions. Under former law, certain out-of-state sellers were exempt from the B&O tax if they made "sales in this state exclusively to or through a direct seller's representative" (also known as the direct seller's exemption).3

The taxpayer, an Illinois-based food reseller, sold products to service companies in Washington through a wholly owned subsidiary. In 1999, the Department changed its interpretation of the statute by amending Wash. Admin. Code Sec. 458-20-246, while the wording of the statute did not change.

The taxpayer successfully challenged the Department's narrowed interpretation of the exemption in prior litigation. In Dot Foods Inc. v. Department of Revenue,4 the Washington Supreme Court held that the Department's interpretation of Wash. Rev. Code Sec. 82.04.423 was "contrary to the statute's plain and unambiguous language" and held that the taxpayer remained "qualified for the B&O tax exemption to the extent its sales continue to qualify for the exemption." The Court's decision in Dot Foods I applied to the taxpayer's tax periods from January 2000 to April 2006.

Based on the judgment in Dot Foods I, in December 2009, the taxpayer sought a refund for B&O taxes paid from January 2005 to August 2009 – a time period that extended beyond the tax periods covered by Dot Foods I. Meanwhile, in response to Dot Foods I, the Washington legislature, in April 2010, retroactively narrowed the scope of Wash. Rev. Code Sec. 82.04.423(2) and prospectively repealed the direct seller's exemption.

Based on the retroactive application of the Washington legislature's amendment, in July 2010, the Department denied the refund request for those periods that fell outside the tax periods covered in Dot Foods I (May 2006 to August 2009) but indicated that the retroactive application of the amendment would not impact the periods covered by Dot Foods I.

The taxpayer and the Department ultimately negotiated a settlement for the refund periods covered by Dot Foods I, in which the taxpayer received over 97 percent of the B&O taxes paid during the January 2000 to April 2006 tax periods. The taxpayer then sought a refund of B&O taxes paid from May 2006 to December 2007.5 The Department denied the request and the taxpayer filed a refund action challenging the retroactive application of the amendment under the theories of collateral estoppel, separation of powers, and due process.

At the trial court, Dot Foods won on its due process claim and the Department won on the collateral estoppel and separation of powers claims. Both parties appealed and the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Washington Supreme Court.

Due Process Challenge

Under United States v. Carlton,6 the due process standard for retroactive tax legislation is the same as that generally applicable to retroactive economic legislation and requires that "the statute must be 'supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means.'" Retroactive legislation must also show that its application "is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose."

The Washington Supreme Court explained that its recent decision in In re Estate of Hambleton7 served as controlling precedent. The Court said that, although Hambleton involved a different tax scheme, the case contained an analogous fact pattern. Using the Carlton rational basis standard, as applied in Hambleton, the Court found that the retroactive application of the 2010 amendment to the taxpayer did not violate due process protections.

Serves Legitimate Legislative Purpose

Carlton requires that, as with other economic legislation, the 2010 amendment serve a legitimate legislative purpose. The legislature had argued that the prevention of "large and devastating revenue losses" was the primary purpose for narrowing Wash. Rev. Code Sec. 82.04.423. The Washington Supreme Court pointed out that this same legislative intent was found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a legitimate purpose in Carlton and furthermore, was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court itself in Hambleton.

The legislature also concluded that former Wash. Rev. Code Sec. 82.04.423 "provided 'preferential tax treatment for out-of-state businesses over their in-state competitors and now creates a strong incentive for in-state businesses to move their operations outside Washington.'" The Washington Supreme Court explained that this goal was analogous to the goal of restoring parity between different classes of taxpayers which was found to serve a legitimate legislative purpose in Hambleton. Based on the above, the Court determined that the 2010 amendment served a legitimate legislative purpose.

Rationally Related to Legitimate Legislative Purpose

Carlton also requires that a retroactivity period be rationally related to the amendment's legitimate purpose. Citing to Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co. v. Department of Revenue,8 the taxpayer argued that the "27-year retroactivity period is 'irrational on its face.'" The Washington Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that Tesoro was not controlling authority. The Court also rejected the taxpayer's argument that a 27-year retroactivity period was per se unconstitutional. The Court pointed to its decision in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Department of Revenue9 which upheld a 37-year retroactivity period. The Court explained that "the length of time that has elapsed since a statute's original enactment is not dispositive." The Court also noted that, while the 2010 amendment does date back to the enactment of the statute, the issue in this case is whether the 2010 amendment applies retroactively to the taxpayer's May 2006 to December 2007 tax periods. The Court explained that this retroactivity period only spanned four years.

The Court went on to explain that the taxpayer incorrectly alleged that the 2010 amendment actually reached back 27 years. The statute of limitations10 "limits retroactive application of the amendment to four years." The Court explained that this four-year period "is well within the range of retroactivity periods that we have previously upheld."11

The Court explained that, while there are constitutional limits on retroactivity, "there is no 'absolute temporal limitation on retroactivity.'" Carlton only requires that the retroactive period must be "'rationally related' to a legitimate legislative purpose."

The Court said that the function of a retroactivity period, and not its length, controls for due process analysis. Applying this standard, the Court found that there was no due process violation because the actual retroactive effect of the amendment, as applied to the taxpayer, was rationally related to the legislature's legitimate purpose of preventing revenue loss from the expanded interpretation of the exemption.

Collateral Estoppel and Separation of Powers Claims

The taxpayer also claimed that, under the collateral estoppel doctrine, the May 2006 to December 2007 tax periods were encompassed by the Dot Foods I judgment, preventing the Department from assessing B&O taxes against it under the 2010 amendment. The Court rejected this argument explaining that collateral estoppel does not apply to subsequent taxing periods that were not previously adjudicated. Dot Foods I covered only the period January 2000 through April 2006, and not the May 2006 through December 2007 tax periods.12

The Court also rejected the taxpayer's separation of powers claim. The Court explained that a separation of powers issue arises when the legislature "infringes on a judicial function." However, the Court pointed out that retroactive legislative amendments that reject a judicial interpretation have been upheld if the legislature was careful not to reverse a judicial decision. The Court explained that there was no evidence that the legislature intended to "affect or curtail" the Dot Foods I decision. The Court noted that the legislature preserved prior judgments through Sec. 1706 of the legislative amendment and, because Dot Foods I did not cover the time period at issue in this case, the retroactive application of the amendment to that time period did not violate the separation of powers doctrine.

Commentary

Although this decision marks the third time that Washington has narrowed tax preferences in the last several years as a result of a taxpayer-favorable court decision,13 the importance of the case lies in its reflection of the recent trend among state courts to uphold retroactive amendments to statutes when there is a potential for substantial revenue losses. At the core of the retroactive legislation controversy are two competing interests – the need for taxpayers to have certainty when relying on tax statutes and the need for states to be able to prevent large revenue losses.14 This controversy surrounding retroactive legislation may soon come to a head as Michigan gears up to hear challenges to the retroactive repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact. In Michigan, the driving force behind the retroactive repeal of the Compact was the potential $1.1 billion in refunds that otherwise would have had to be paid to taxpayers, many of which are primarily located outside Michigan. The courts' approval of retroactive legislation in Michigan is troubling because it reflects the view that court cases decided on the merits in favor of a taxpayer, even by the highest court in the state, effectively can be overruled by a legislature whenever the cost of such litigation is deemed to be too great. This same rationale was relied on by the Washington Supreme Court to uphold the retroactive application of the 2010 amendment to the taxpayer in this case.

Footnotes

1 Dot Foods, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Washington Supreme Court, No. 92398-1, March 17, 2016.

2 WASH. REV. CODE § 82.04.220(1).

3 Former WASH. REV. CODE § 82.04.423(1)(d) (1983). "Direct seller's representative" was defined in former WASH. REV. CODE § 82.04.423(2).

4 215 P.3d 185 (Wash. 2009), referenced as "Dot Foods I."

5 These 20 months represented the length of time beginning immediately after the tax periods at issue in Dot Foods I and ending when Dot Foods' business practices changed in 2008.

6 512 U.S. 26 (1994).

7 335 P.3d 398 (Wash. 2014), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 318 (2015).

8 246 P.3d 211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, 269 P.3d 1013 (Wash. 2012).

9 973 P.2d 1011 (Wash. 1999).

10 WASH. REV. CODE § 82.32.060(1).

11 Citing to In re Estate of Hambleton, 335 P.3d 398 (Wash. 2014), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 318 (2015) (eight-year retroactivity period); Digital Equip. Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 916 P.2d 933 (Wash. 1996) (four-year retroactivity period); W.R. Grace & Co. v. Department of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1011 (Wash. 1999) (eight-year retroactivity period).

12 The Court also rejected the taxpayer's argument that Laws of 2010, 1st Spec. Sess., ch. 23, § 1706 extended the judgment in Dot Foods I to the taxpayer's May 2006 to December 2007 tax periods. Section 1706 provides that the substantive amendment to WASH. REV. CODE § 82.04.423 "does not affect any final judgments, not subject to appeal, entered by a court of competent jurisdiction before the effective date of this section." The Court held that because "a refund for the interim period was not reduced to a final judgment prior to the date that the 2010 amendment went into effect, §1706 is not implicated."

13 See also Homestreet Bank, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 210 P.3d 297 (Wash. 2009); Agrilink Foods, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 103 P.3d 1226 (Wash. 2005).

14 Council On State Taxation, Second Corrected Brief of Amicus Curiae Council On State Taxation (COST) in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants' Application for Leave to Appeal, Feb. 12, 2016.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.