Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

Division I: Phone Contacts are Not Contacts for B&O Tax Purposes

Wedbush Securities, Inc. v. City of Seattle

Wedbush is based in Los Angeles. However, it has an office in Seattle with about 30 employees. Those employees take phone sales and orders from customers across the U.S. In reporting its taxes, Wedbush reported only those revenues derived from clients that actually lived within the city. In Seattle, the B&O tax formula is based on a formula utilizing both gross receipts and payroll.

At first glance, looks like Wedbush may have been complying:

The service income factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total service income of the taxpayer in the city during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total service income of the taxpayer everywhere during the tax period. Service income is in the city if:

(i) The customer location is in the city; or

(ii) The income-producing activity is performed in more than one location and a greater proportion of the service-income producing activity is performed in the city than in any other location, based on costs of performance, and the taxpayer is not taxable at the customer location; or

(iii) The service-income-producing activity is performed within the city, and the taxpayer is not taxable in the customer location.

However, under subsection (i), the customer location is defined as "(d) "Customer location" means the city or unincorporated area of a county where the majority of the contacts between the taxpayer and the customer take place." The City determines customer location based on where the physical customer contact occurred. Here, there was no physical contact, which then places you under the formula for subsection (ii). The services were performed in Seattle. 

Now, Wedbush wanted this interpreted as any contact, physical or via phone, as falling under section (i). Why? Well, then they would only pay on those contacts in Seattle, as opposed to its overall gross revenue for the entire company.

Oddly enough, the Court, without explanation, determines these are cascading clauses. While this is likely from prior case law, it definitely bares explaining. At first glance,  it seems to me that clauses (i) through (iii) could very well be interpreted as non-exclusive, meaning you could invoke all. However, if you do not limit contacts, you may still be able to invoke section (i) and other provisions of section (ii), if the majority of services occur in the City. While there may be a case where you are taxing under section (i) and not taxing all income, there is never a case where you are taxing under section (ii) and not taxing all income. As such, you can't interpret these clause as being separate things that you can invoke together. Rather, you have to interpret them as separate provisions. Likewise, you cannot give the city a blanket option as to which one to choose, as they would always choose (ii) over (i) to capture all income. Thus, you have to determine that these are cascading. If these are cascading, you have to interpret contacts as "physical contacts", otherwise there would never be a time when (ii) was invoked over (i) in a service economy.

If that doesn't make sense, that's fine. Its all very complex legal argument. The thing you need to know is this: If you have a service business in a city, and your customers are not physical contacts, you will need to report based on the two factor formula for your entire income, lest you get nailed on an audit, as what happened to Wedbush.


Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.