Overton v. Washington State Economic Assistance Authority, Nos. 47299-8
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | HICKS; BRACHTENBACH |
| Citation | 96 Wn.2d 552,637 P.2d 652 |
| Parties | Jerry B. OVERTON/Spokane Transformer Company, Respondent, v. The WASHINGTON STATE ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY, Appellant. SPECTRUM GLASS COMPANY, INC., a Washington Corporation, Respondent, v. ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, an agency of the State of Washington, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 47299-8,47488-5 |
Page 552
v.
The WASHINGTON STATE ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY, Appellant.
SPECTRUM GLASS COMPANY, INC., a Washington Corporation, Respondent,
v.
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, an agency of the State of
Washington, Appellant.
Page 553
[637 P.2d 653] Ken O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Thomas W. Hayton, Leland T. Johnson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Dept. of Transp., Olympia, for appellants.
Layman, Mullin & Etter, R. Max Etter, Jr., Spokane, Culp, Dwyer, Guterson & Grader, Barry Wolf, Seattle, for respondents.
HICKS, Justice.
The Economic Assistance Authority (EAA) denied tax deferral benefits to two businesses which EAA determined were not eligible under the Economic Assistance Act of 1972, RCW 43.31A, for deferral of sales and use taxes payable on construction projects. The decision of the EAA in both cases was overturned by the Superior Court. The cases have been consolidated for direct review by this court.
The general issue presented by both cases is whether a manufacturing firm that doesn't build its own factory but leases from a third party that actually built, paid for, and owns the factory, is eligible under RCW 43.31A for deferral of sales and use taxes. In both cases we affirm the administrative agency, and reverse the Superior Court.
The facts are as follows. During the so-called Boeing recession of the early 1970's, the legislature passed the Economic Assistance Act of 1972, RCW 43.31A, allowing for deferral of sales and use taxes on construction projects "undertaken" by a manufacturing firm. The relevant statutes as written at the time these cases arose are as follows:
[637 P.2d 654] 43.31A.140 ... The authority shall certify the eligibility of investment projects, and the department of revenue shall grant investment tax deferrals for eligible investment projects in an amount not to exceed the state and local sales tax
Page 554
payable under chapters 82.08 and 82.14 RCW or the use tax payable under chapters 82.12 and 82.14 RCW on machinery, materials, labor, and services directly utilized in a certified eligible investment project undertaken by a firm engaged in or to be engaged in manufacturing.43.31A.160 ... The department of revenue shall conduct an audit of the project upon its completion in order to determine the total amount of tax deferral. Any tax found due on nonqualifying construction or purchases shall be immediately assessed and payable. The manufacturing firm will begin paying the deferred taxes three years after the date certified by the authority as the date on which the construction project has been operationally completed.
43.31A.170 ... The department of revenue may authorize an accelerated repayment schedule upon request of the manufacturing firm.
(Italics ours.)
Both businesses, Spectrum Glass and Spokane Transformer Co. attempted to qualify for the above tax deferral on the construction of new factories. Both were denied because the financing and ownership of the factory was through third persons and the businesses applying for the deferral were simply lessees. In the case of Spokane Transformer, the third-person owner of the new factory was Jerry B. Overton, the sole owner of Spokane Transformer Co. In the case of Spectrum Glass, the new factory was financed and built by a third-party owner, but Spectrum Glass, the manufacturer/lessee, oversaw the actual construction and by contract agreed to pay the sales and use taxes that would otherwise fall to the owner.
The EAA took the view that the contractual arrangement was done only so that Spectrum Glass could qualify for the deferral. The agency's determination was that the intent of the legislature was not to allow the tax deferral on construction projects not "undertaken" (paid for) by the manufacturing firm itself.
Page 555
Where an administrative agency is charged with administering a special field of law and endowed with quasi-judicial functions because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. State Dfi, No. 32851-8-II.
...to the agency's interpretation of the governing statutes and legislative intent. Overton v. Econ. Assistance Auth., 96 Wash.2d 552, 555, 637 P.2d 652 (1981) (deferring to the Department of Revenue's interpretation of tax exemptions for manufacturers). Furthermore, we give substantial defere......
-
Seattle v. The Pollution Control Hearings Board, No. 73419-4 (WA 5/14/2004), No. 73419-4
...Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 142 Wn.2d 316, 324-25, 12 P.3d 144 (2000); see also Overton v. Wash. State Econ. Assistance Auth., 96 Wn.2d 552, 556-58, 637 P.2d 652 (1981). Thus, if the legislature clearly intended chapter 210 to be retroactive, then the legislation may impact pendi......
-
Kitsap Alliance of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 38017–0–II.
...act, even in the absence of a provision for retroactivity. [255 P.3d 702] Overton v. Economic Assistance Auth., 96 Wash.2d 552, 558, 637 P.2d 652 (1981). ¶ 19 Legislative response to the confusion about the 2003 amendments did not amount to overturning a settled construction[160 Wash.App. 2......
-
Multicare Medical Center v. State, Dept. of Social and Health Services, No. 2
...to determine the meaning and purpose of the statute is vested in this court. Overton v. Economic Assistance Auth., 96 Wash.2d 552, 555, 637 P.2d 652 (1981). Because the interpretation of a statute is a question of law, Condit v. Lewis Refrigeration Co., 101 Wash.2d 106, 676 P.2d 466 (1984);......
-
Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. State Dfi, No. 32851-8-II.
...to the agency's interpretation of the governing statutes and legislative intent. Overton v. Econ. Assistance Auth., 96 Wash.2d 552, 555, 637 P.2d 652 (1981) (deferring to the Department of Revenue's interpretation of tax exemptions for manufacturers). Furthermore, we give substantial defere......
-
Seattle v. The Pollution Control Hearings Board, No. 73419-4 (WA 5/14/2004), No. 73419-4
...Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 142 Wn.2d 316, 324-25, 12 P.3d 144 (2000); see also Overton v. Wash. State Econ. Assistance Auth., 96 Wn.2d 552, 556-58, 637 P.2d 652 (1981). Thus, if the legislature clearly intended chapter 210 to be retroactive, then the legislation may impact pendi......
-
Kitsap Alliance of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 38017–0–II.
...act, even in the absence of a provision for retroactivity. [255 P.3d 702] Overton v. Economic Assistance Auth., 96 Wash.2d 552, 558, 637 P.2d 652 (1981). ¶ 19 Legislative response to the confusion about the 2003 amendments did not amount to overturning a settled construction[160 Wash.App. 2......
-
Multicare Medical Center v. State, Dept. of Social and Health Services, No. 2
...to determine the meaning and purpose of the statute is vested in this court. Overton v. Economic Assistance Auth., 96 Wash.2d 552, 555, 637 P.2d 652 (1981). Because the interpretation of a statute is a question of law, Condit v. Lewis Refrigeration Co., 101 Wash.2d 106, 676 P.2d 466 (1984);......