Wisconsin Property Tax Consultants, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 976 N.W.2d 482

2017 Wis. Act 59 amended Wis. Stat. § 70.111(27)(b) to create a new exemption for "machinery, tools, and patterns, not including such items used in manufacturing."
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) asked the Department of Revenue (DOR) for guidance; DOR replied by letter taking the position that the exemption does not apply to manufacturers.
WMC filed a declaratory-judgment action under Wis. Stat. § 227.40 alleging (1) DOR's letter is an unpromulgated rule, (2) DOR's interpretation is inconsistent with the statute, and (3) constitutional violations.
The circuit court dismissed all claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, deferring to the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC); the court of appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court granted review only on the unpromulgated-rule claim and reversed: the majority held the circuit court erred because that claim is a pure question of law outside TAC’s specialized expertise and should be decided by the court.
Concurring opinions emphasized related points: Chief Justice Ziegler noted WMC could not have proceeded before TAC; Justice Roggensack argued TAC lacks statutory authority to adjudicate whether DOR followed rulemaking procedures (an issue the majority did not decide).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court properly deferred the unpromulgated-rule claim to the Tax Appeals Commission under the primary jurisdiction doctrine	The claim is a pure question of law about whether DOR’s letter is an unpromulgated rule and thus not suited to agency first-review; primary jurisdiction inapplicable	The matter relates to interpretation and application of the new tax exemption and similar issues were pending before TAC, so TAC should address it first	Reversed: circuit court erroneously exercised discretion; the unpromulgated-rule claim is a legal, nonspecialized question for the court to decide first
Whether the Tax Appeals Commission has jurisdiction to decide whether DOR’s letter is an unpromulgated rule	TAC lacks jurisdiction; WMC could not bring the rule challenge to TAC	DOR and others suggested TAC handling related tax-interpretation matters made agency first-review appropriate	Majority did not decide TAC’s jurisdiction; concurrences state TAC likely lacks authority and thus primary jurisdiction would not apply

City of Brookfield v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 171 Wis. 2d 400 (1992) (describing the primary jurisdiction doctrine and factors for deference)
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 382 Wis. 2d 496 (2018) (courts must accord no deference to agency legal interpretations)
McEwen v. Pierce County, 90 Wis. 2d 256 (1979) (agencies created for technical factfinding; primary jurisdiction considerations)
Sawejka v. Morgan, 56 Wis. 2d 70 (1972) (circuit court discretion to allow agency to act first when both have jurisdiction)
Beal v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Madison, 90 Wis. 2d 171 (1979) (primary jurisdiction requires that both court and agency have jurisdiction)
Providence Catholic School v. Bristol School Dist., 231 Wis. 2d 159 (Ct. App. 1999) (statutory and contract interpretation are matters for courts, not agency first-review)