307 P.3d 754
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- GHE owns a 22-acre Grays Harbor County property with power generation equipment and buildings.
- Duke Energy began a gas power plant on the property, but stopped in 2002 at 56% completion.
- GHE restarted construction in 2007 and the plant became fully operational in 2008.
- Grays Harbor I held the equipment was personal property; on remand GHE sought summary judgment for a tax refund.
- GHE argued unfinished plant qualified as new construction under WAC 458-19-005(2)(p) and that WAC 458-12-342(1) exempts such property from personal property tax during new construction.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, deeming the new construction rule inapplicable to GHE’s personal property; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the new construction rule exempt personal property during construction? | GHE argues the rule precludes assessment during new construction. | County argues the rule applies only to real property and does not exempt personal property. | The rule does not create an exemption; personal property remains taxable. |
Key Cases Cited
- TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 170 Wn.2d 273 (2010) (tax exemptions construe narrowly)
- Bowie v. Dep’t of Revenue, 171 Wn.2d 1 (2011) (exemption language must be clear)
- Alaska Land Co. v. King County, 77 Wn.2d 247 (1969) (legislature controls exemptions; agency regs cannot create exemptions)
- Fifteen-O-One Fourth Ave. Ltd. P’ship v. Dep’t of Revenue, 49 Wn. App. 300 (1987) (tax assessment date and real property focus)
- Mac Amusement Co. v. Department of Revenue, 95 Wn.2d 963 (1981) (ambiguous tax statutes construed against taxation)
- Satterlee v. Department of Social & Health Services, 131 Wn. App. 97 (2006) (superfluity concerns in statutory interpretation)