Legal Opinion

Bowie v. Department of Revenue

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 5, 2009No. 36977-0-IIPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHoughton, J.

¶1 Richard and Annette Bowie, d/b/a Valpak of Western Washington—North, as franchisees of Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc., create and distribute advertising coupon mailings to Washington residential addresses. The Department of Revenue (DOR), at their request, categorized this activity as "publishing” and taxed *19them under the business and occupations (B&O) tax rate applicable to persons engaged in the publishing business. The DOR later rescinded this decision. The Bowies and other Valpak Marketing franchisees (Taxpayers)1 sought superior court review of the rescission. In ruling on…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Overton v. Consolidated Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Overton v. Consolidated InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Kilian v. AtkinsonWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Lacey Nursing Center, Inc. v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Cerrillo v. EsparzaWashington Supreme Court · 2006

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bowie v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Bowie v. WASHINGTON DEPT. OF REVENUEWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Pisha v. Safeco Insurance Company of AmericaDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API