Enterprise Leasing v. City of Tacoma

• Decision Date: 02 December 1999
• Docket Number: No. 67721-2.,67721-2.
• Citation: 988 P.2d 961,139 Wash.2d 546
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: ENTERPRISE LEASING, INC., D/B/A Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Petitioner. v. CITY OF TACOMA, Finance Department, Respondent.

988 P.2d 961

139 Wash.2d 546

ENTERPRISE LEASING, INC., D/B/A Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Petitioner. v. CITY OF TACOMA, Finance Department, Respondent.

No. 67721-2.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Decided December 2, 1999.

Argued October 28, 1999.

Lane, Powell, Spears & Lubersky, George Carl Mastrodonato, Olympia, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Association of Washington Businesses and Car and Truck Renting & Leasing Assn.

Steven L. Gross, Seattle, Daniel Brian Heid, Lakewood, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington State Association of Muni.

Davis, Wright & Tremaine, D. Bruce Lamka, Garry G. Fujita, Seattle, for Petitioner.

Harding Thomas Roe, Asst. City Attorney, Tacoma, for Respondent.

SMITH J.

Petitioner Enterprise Leasing, Inc., a Washington corporation, seeks review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division II, which reversed an order of summary judgment by the Pierce County Superior Court in favor of Petitioner. The Court of Appeals concluded that RCW 35.21.710 permits Respondent City of Tacoma to classify Petitioner's automobile rental activity as a "service" and not as a "retail sale" for local Business and Occupation taxes either because a "grandfather" clause¹ of RCW 35.21.710 authorizes this classification or because Respondent is not bound by the State's definition of "retail sales" under RCW 82.04.050.² We granted review. We affirm.

QUESTION PRESENTED

The question presented in this case is whether RCW 35.21.710 permits the City of Tacoma to classify the automobile rental activity of Petitioner Enterprise Leasing, Inc. as a "service" and not as a "retail sale" for imposition of local Business and Occupation taxes.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The material facts are not in dispute.³ Respondent City of Tacoma imposes a local Business and Occupation (B and O) tax on business activity conducted within the city.⁴ Respondent's classification of the business activity determines the tax rate to be imposed. Its B and O tax under the "retail sales" classification is assessed at a rate of 0.153 percent, while the same tax under the "service" classification is assessed at a rate of 0.48 percent.⁵ As of January 1, 1982, before the current rate of 0.48 percent was assessed, Respondent's B and O tax rate under the "service" classification was 0.5 percent.⁶

Operating from three locations in Tacoma, as Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Petitioner Enterprise Leasing, Inc. is engaged in the business of renting and leasing automobiles to consumers.⁷ Petitioner reported its income for the Tacoma B and O tax under the "retail sales" classification at the tax rate of 0.153 percent.⁸ But Respondent City of Tacoma treats rental activity under the "service" classification.⁹ Accordingly, it advised Petitioner to report its income under the higher B and O tax rate of 0.48 percent.¹⁰ Petitioner declined to do so.¹¹ Respondent audited Petitioner and assessed additional taxes, interest and penalties against it in the amount of $24,467.07.¹²

Petitioner Enterprise Leasing appealed to the City of Tacoma Hearing Examiner, Rodney M. Kerslake, who on April 19, 1996 upheld the assessment notices in all respects.¹³ Petitioner then appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the Pierce County Superior Court¹⁴ and moved for summary judgment on July 8, 1997.¹⁵ On September 19, 1997, the court, the Honorable Bruce W. Cohoe, rendered an oral decision in favor of Petitioner.¹⁶ Respondent City of Tacoma filed motions for reconsideration and summary judgment on December 4, 1997.¹⁷ The trial court denied the motions and signed an order granting summary judgment in favor of Petitioner on January 23, 1998.¹⁸

On February 13, 1998, Respondent filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, Division II.¹⁹ The Court of Appeals, the Honorable C.C. Bridgewater writing, reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Petitioner Enterprise Leasing.²⁰ The court concluded that RCW 35.21.710 does not require Respondent's definition of "retail sale" to be consistent with the State's definition and does not limit the local B and O tax that Respondent City of Tacoma may apply to Petitioner's automobile rental activity.²¹ The court further concluded that RCW 35.21.710 contains an exemption clause covering existing classifications and taxes at the time of its passage and permits Respondent to exercise its taxing power over Petitioner.²²

Petitioner Enterprise Leasing petitioned this Court for review of the decision by the Court of Appeals, which we granted on June 29, 1999.²³

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews an order of summary judgment de novo.²⁴ It engages in the same inquiry as the trial court, treating all facts and reasonable inferences from the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.²⁵ Where, as here, the parties do not dispute the material facts, this Court will affirm an order on summary judgment if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.²⁶

Interpretation of a statute is a question of law.²⁷ "`[T]he fundamental object of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature' which is done by `first look[ing] to the plain meaning of words used in a statute.'"²⁸ When words in a statute are plain and unambiguous, statutory construction is not necessary, and this Court must apply the statute as written unless the statute evidences an intent to the contrary.²⁹

REVIEW OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY

At issue in this case is interpretation of RCW 35.21.710, which provides:

License fees or taxes on certain business activities—Uniform rate required— Maximum rate established. Any city which imposes a license fee or tax upon business activities consisting of the making of retail sales of tangible personal property which are measured by gross receipts or gross income from such sales, shall impose such tax at a single uniform rate upon all such business activities. The taxing authority granted to cities for taxes upon business activities measured by gross receipts or gross income from sales shall not exceed a rate of .0020; except that any city with an adopted ordinance at a higher rate, as of January 1, 1982 shall be limited to a maximum increase of ten percent of the January 1982 rate, "not to exceed an annual incremental increase of two percent of current rate: PROVIDED, That any adopted ordinance which classifies according to different types of business or services shall be subject to both the ten percent and the two percent annual incremental increase limitation on each tax rate: PROVIDED FURTHER, That all surtaxes on business and occupation classifications in effect as of January 1, 1982, shall expire no later than December 31, 1982, or by expiration date established by local ordinance. Cities which impose a license fee or tax upon business activities consisting of the making of retail sales of tangible personal property which are measured by gross receipts or gross income from such sales shall be required to submit an annual report to the state auditor identifying the rate established and the revenues received from each fee or tax. This section shall not apply to any business activities subject to the tax imposed by chapter 82.16 RCW. For purposes of this section, the providing to consumers of competitive telephone service, as defined in RCW 82.04.065, shall be deemed to be the retail sale of tangible personal property.

Petitioner Enterprise Leasing argues that RCW 35.21.710 prevents Respondent from classifying automobile rental activity as a "service" for imposition of local B and O taxes.³⁰ The term "retail sales," as used in RCW 35.21.710, is not defined in chapter 35.21 RCW.³¹ However, RCW 82.04.050 does define the term to "include the renting or leasing of tangible personal property to consumers...."³² Petitioner argues that because RCW 35.21.710 relates to a city's authority to impose local B and O taxes on "retail sales" and because RCW 82.04.050 defines the term to include automobile rental activity, Respondent City of Tacoma must classify Petitioner's automobile rental activity as a "retail sale" and not as a "service" for local B and O tax purposes.³³

Respondent City of Tacoma argues that RCW 35.21.710 does not limit its authority to classify activities for local B and O taxes.³⁴ RCW 35.21.710 specifically refers to RCW 82.04.065 for a definition of "competitive telephone service," but does not refer to RCW 82.04.050 for a definition of "retail sales" as urged by Petitioner.³⁵ Respondent argues that, in the absence of an express reference or specific legislative preemption of municipal tax power, it has the authority to define "retail sales" to include a "service" classification.³⁶ Alternatively, Respondent argues that an exemption clause under RCW 35.21.710 permits it to classify Petitioner's automobile rental activity as a "service."³⁷

DEFINING "RETAIL SALES" UNDER RCW 35.21.710

"In general, a city or municipality may define its taxation categories as it sees fit unless it is restrained by a constitutional provision or legislative enactment."³⁸ In Commonwealth Title Insurance Co. a municipality imposed a local B and O tax under the "service" classification for activities of a title insurance company.³⁹ The company challenged the local classification as being inconsistent with the State's classification of such activities as "retail sales" for State B and O tax purposes.⁴⁰ This Court concluded the municipality had authority to classify activities of title insurance companies in any manner it wished because there was no restraining constitutional provision or legislative enactment.⁴¹ "[I]f the legislature had intended to make its business and occupation tax definitions binding on the cities of this state it would have done so specifically, as it did in RCW 82.14.030, 82.14.050, and 82.14.070 when it authorized the imposition of city sales taxes."⁴² This principle applies to Respondent City of Tacoma in this case.

EXEMPTION CLAUSE OF RCW 35.21.710

...