Search form

August 27, 2015
That Silly Washington Court of Appeals … There’s No Income Tax In Washington!
Practice Areas: 

In November 2014, Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals decided the case of Steven Klein v. Dep’t of Revenue, 184 Wn. App. 344, 336 P.3d 663 (2014).  The dispute revolved around a manufacturer’s dealer cash programs.  Essentially, under specific terms and conditions, if a dealer sold certain Honda models, Honda would pay the dealer additional cash.  Klein argued that payments were cash discounts on the purchased inventory; the state argued that it was service income under the “catch-all” provision of service classification.  The court ruled that it was service income because the dealer had to “perform” to earn the additional cash.  (Query, does getting a 10% discount on an item constitute income to the payer if such discount is pursuant to paying the invoice early, paying with cash instead of credit or paying with a debit card instead of a credit card?)  Of particular consternation to the taxpayer and the taxpaying public was a statement in the court’s ruling:

"Therefore, contrary to Klein Honda's argument, the B & O tax is not a tax on only specific enumerated business activities, but rather on 'the gross revenues received in the course of doing business.'"

Steven Klein, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 184 Wash. App. 344, 353, 336 P.3d 663, 667 (2014) (underlining supplied).   Let’s parse that out:  "…the B&O tax is [also a tax] on 'the gross revenues received in the course of doing business.'"  Whoa!  That sounds like an income tax, not an excise tax that applies to discrete activities that occur in the state measured by income.  The B&O tax is a tax on income. 

Klein thought so too.  So, it appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court.  Apparently, that is what the appellate court said, but that is not what the appellate court meant.  In an opinion released this morning, the Supreme Court characterizes Klein’s interpretation as a mischaracterization of the appellate court’s decision.[1]  Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, but anytime a court even hints that an income tax is valid is going to get the attention of taxpayers.  Here is how the court defuses the issue:

"Klein Honda argues the Court of Appeals' statement conflicts with this court's precedent, State ex rei. Stiner v. Yelle, 174 Wash. 402, 407, 25 P.2d 91 (1933), in which this court "upheld the B&O tax because it was a tax on business activity and not income."  Suppl. Br. Of Pet'r at 8. Although the Court of Appeals' reference to the B&O tax as a tax "on" gross income appears imprecise when taken out of context, the Court of Appeals' opinion, when read as a whole, correctly lays out the B&O tax scheme. The court correctly concluded that Klein Honda's participation in the dealer cash program "was a discrete business activity" taxable under the catchall provision." Steven Klein, Inc., 184 Wn. App. at 353-54.

That breeze you felt this morning was not caused by the weather; it was from the aggregate of taxpayers breathing again.

[1] "However, Klein Honda is factually incorrect and mischaracterizes the Court of Appeals' opinion."  Klein Honda v. Dep’t of Revenue,, page 12.


This advisory is a publication of Eisenhower Carlson PLLC. Our purpose in publishing this advisory is to inform our clients and friends of recent legal developments. It is not intended, nor should it be used, as a substitute for specific legal advice as legal counsel may only be given in response to inquiries regarding particular situations.

Eisenhower Carlson PLLC © 2011  ||  Credits & Disclaimers

This website is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.

No portion of this page or any content herein may be redistributed or republished without written permission from Eisenhower Carlson PLLC.The information you'll find here is our way of introducing you to Eisenhower Carlson PLLC. It contains no official legal opinions. No responsibility is assumed for the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this website. The information on this website is not intended as a substitute for legal counsel, and is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship.

We invite you to contact us by phone, fax or e-mail for a session with one of our lawyers.

For your own protection, we strongly suggest that you do not transmit confidential documents to us or anyone else via unsecured email.

If you have any questions or comments concerning this site, please send an email to Do not send confidential information via email.

Concept & Design: CAVLRY
Photography: CAVLRY
Drupal CMS Development: Praece Strategic Technolog Consulting