Rho Company v. Department of Revenue
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentDore, J.
(dissenting)—I dissent.
No one should mistake the fact that the majority has inflicted a catastrophic loss of revenue on the State. The wider implications of this decision should be recognized, if only as a measure of how wrong the decision is. First, although it directly concerns only the business and occupation (B&O) tax, this case necessarily will have an enormous impact on the calculation of the state sales tax. Since the B&O and retail sales tax statutes share a number of key definitions, many sales of services fall under the category of "retail sales" for B&O and sales tax purposes. By…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lonsdale v. ChesterfieldWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- Griffiths & Sprague Stevedoring Co. v. Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1967
- Walthew v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Christensen, O'Connor, Garrison & Havelka v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Gay v. Lavina State BankMontana Supreme Court · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.