Time Oil Co. v. State, 41328
| Citation | 79 Wn.2d 143,483 P.2d 628 |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 41328,41328 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | TIME OIL COMPANY, a Washington Corporation, Appellant, v. STATE of Washington and the State Tax Commission of the State of Washington, Respondents. |
Jones, Grey, Kehoe, Bayley, Hooper & Olsen, W. C. Anderson, Clinton F. Raymond, Jr., Seattle, for appellant.
Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Michael B. Hansen, Timothy R. Malone, Asst. Attys., Gen., Olympia, for respondents.
Predicated upon certain transactions between appellant, Time Oil Company (hereafter referred to as Time), other oil companies, such as Farmers Union Central Exchange, Douglas Oil Company, and Wilshire Oil Company (hereafter referred to as exchanger companies), and U.S. Oil & Refining Company (hereafter referred to as U.S. Oil), the State of Washington assessed certain business and occupation taxes against Time for the audit period between July 1, 1961, and June 30, 1965. Time appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County affirming the assessment.
The underlying facts are not in dispute.
Time is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Washington, with headquarters in Seattle. It is engaged in the business of selling and distributing petroleum products within and without the state. During the audit period in question part of Time's supply of petroleum products was purchased from U.S. Oil, a Delaware corporation, with a refinery in Tacoma, Washington. During this period Time owned 50 per cent of the shares of stock of U.S. Oil, and the remaining 50 per cent of the shares were owned by various persons, including some who were officers or directors of Time.
At all times concerned, Time and the exchange companies had in effect agreements pursuant to which Time would supply various petroleum products to the exchanger companies in the Pacific Northwest area, and receive back from the recipient companies like quantities of similar petroleum products in other market areas served by Time, E.g., California, Oregon, and Montana. Time and the exchanger companies would keep an account of their respective transactions and at the end of an accounting period woudl attempt to balance out the products exchanged measure for measure. Other than the economic benefits flowing to the participants in the form of savings in transportation and storage costs, no attempt was made by any of the parties to make a profit on the exchange transactions.
By Washington State Tax Commission Order 62--8, dated May 22, 1962, it was determined that the intercompany exchanges were subject to the business and occupation tax under the classification of wholesaling as set forth in RCW 82.04.270. 1 Time does not challenge the correctness of such ruling nor the taxable nature of the direct exchanges involved.
Occasionally, during the course of its exchange transactions, Time would, subject to the consent of U.S. Oil, request U.S. Oil to furnish quantities of petroleum products to one or more of the exchanger companies. This U.S. Oil would do, making physical delivery of the products, accompanied with bills of lading, at its refinery site in Tacoma. Following such delivery, U.S. Oil would invoice Time for the products supplied. Time, in turn, would pay U.S. Oil and debit the recipient exchange company with the quantity of petroleum product so delivered.
Treating such transactions as akin to a direct exchange of products, as between Time and the exchanger companies involved, the state assessed Time for business and occupation taxes upon the same basis as such taxes were assessed against the direct intercompany exchanges, I.e., as wholesaling activities. It is this assessment of taxes upon these transactions about which Time here complains.
Time seeks to distinguish the tripartite transactions from direct intercompany exchanges because, it contends, title and/or possession of the petroleum products supplied to the exchanger companies by U.S. Oil never came to reside in Time. This is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avnet, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue
... ... tax. Simpson, 141 Wash.2d at 149, 3 P.3d 741 (alteration in original) (quoting Time Oil Co. v. State, 79 Wash.2d 143, 146, 483 P.2d 628 (1971) and Budget RentACar of Wash.-Or., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 81 Wash.2d 171, 175, 500 ... ...
-
Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC v. Dep't of Revenue
... 195 Wash.2d 27 455 P.3d 659 LOWES HOME CENTERS, LLC, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Washington, Respondent. No. 96383-5 Supreme Court of Washington. Argued May 30, 2019 Filed ... 14 Under Washington law, a seller who collects sales tax from a buyer over time must hold those funds in trust and must remit them to DOR. RCW 82.08.050(2) - (3). A 455 P.3d 663 ... ...
-
Avnet, Inc. v. Wash. Dep't of Revenue
... ... 4900, Seattle, WA, 98101-3099, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Council on State Taxation. Robert Andrew Battles, Association of Washington Business, 1414 Cherry St. S.E., Olympia, ... 187 Wash.2d 51 Time Oil Co. v. State, 79 Wash.2d 143, 146, 483 P.2d 628 (1971). The B & O tax is to be imposed as ... ...
-
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue
... ... at 538, 71 S.Ct. at 380. This CBI has failed to do. In our opinion, it defies common sense to say the presence of a local office, full-time supervisors, and a warehouse containing installation and maintenance equipment did not play a role in CBI's successful attainment of these contracts ... ...