G-P Gypsum Corp. v. Department of Revenue
Court of Appeals of Washington
1ConcurrenceHunt, J.
¶20 (concurring) I agree with my colleagues that Tacoma improperly taxed Gypsum. But I write separately to clarify the statutory definition of “use” in former RCW 82.12.010(2) (1994).
¶21 The version of former RCW 82.12.010(2) in effect during the period of contested taxation here, January 1, 1996, to December 31, 2000, provided the following definition of “use”:
“Use,” “used,” “using,” or “put to use” shall have their ordinary meaning, and shall mean the first act within this state by which the taxpayer takes or assumes dominion or control over the article of tangible personal property (as a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- King County v. Central Puget SoundWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Berrocal v. FernandezWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Berrocal v. FernandezWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Simpson Inv. Co. v. State, Dept. of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.