Lamtec Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 246 P.3d 788

Lamtec Corporation, a New Jersey manufacturer, has no permanent presence in Washington but sells to WA customers and occasionally sends sales staff to WA.
WA customers ordered over $9 million of Lamtec’s products from 1997 to 2003; Lamtec was assessed WA B&O tax based on its WA activities in 2004.
Lamtec paid the tax under protest and pursued a refund, with the trial court granting summary judgment for the Department on substantial nexus.
Lamtec and the Department previously litigated whether WA may tax Lamtec under the commerce clause, focusing on nexus requirements.
The Washington Supreme Court held that Lamtec’s in-state sales visits were significantly associated with establishing and maintaining a WA market, satisfying nexus for B&O tax.
Dissent argued Lamtec had no physical presence and that nexus should require a more robust in-state presence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lamtec has substantial nexus with Washington for B&O tax.	Lamtec relied on absence of physical presence to negate nexus.	Lamtec’s in-state activities maintained the WA market and sufficed for nexus.	Yes; nexus satisfied by Lamtec’s in-state activities maintaining its WA market.
Whether a physical presence requirement applies to B&O nexus.	No physical presence; Quill should limit nexus to transactions with physical presence.	Less-than-brick-and-mortar activities can establish nexus; Tyler Pipe supports this.	A physical presence test, if applied, can be satisfied by in-state activities; not limited to permanent facilities.
Whether Lamtec’s sales visits in WA constitute substantial nexus under Tyler Pipe.	Visits are insubstantial and did not solicit sales; no nexus.	In-state activities to maintain and establish a market are substantial nexus.	Yes; repeated in-state visits to maintain the WA market establish substantial nexus.
Whether due process or dormant Commerce Clause limits apply to WA’s B&O tax in this context.	Nexus fails, violating due process/dormant commerce clause.	Nexus and activities connect to WA market and services; tax is valid.	Tax affirmed under commerce clause, with substantial nexus found.

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) (physical-presence rule for sales/use taxes; limits on other taxes debated)
Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington State Dep't of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987) (nexus may be satisfied by activities significantly associated with maintaining a market)
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977) (Complete Auto test: substantial nexus, fair apportionment, nondiscrimination, related services)
National Geographic Soc. v. Cal. Bd. of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551 (1977) (presence considerations in nexus; slight or continuous presence discussed)
Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960) (continuous local solicitation and related in-state activities can support nexus)
Orvis Co. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of N.Y., 86 N.Y.2d 165 (1995) (in-state activities can constitute sufficient nexus for tax authority)