uniformity requirement in Washington

2005The validity of a particular tax levy is measured by whether aggregate levies exceed one percent of true and fair value and whether the taxpayer is being treated in accord with the uniformity requirement” of article VII, section 1); Sator, 89 Wn.2d at 343 .

2005Sator, 89 Wash.2d at 344 , 572 P.2d 1094 . [4] The dissent cites a ruling of the Court of Appeals claiming that a taxpayer's request for a midcycle revaluation would not violate the uniformity requirement.

1985The trial court concluded that the relationship of the various operators and their customers was that of landlord *723 and tenant rather than bailor and bailee, and consequently the tax imposed on the amount of rentals received was a tax on property in violation of the uniformity requirement of article 7, section 1 of the Washington State Constitution as interpreted in Apartment Operators Ass'n of Seattle, Inc. v. Schumacher, 56 Wn.2d 46 , 351 P.2d 124 (1960).

1985The trial court concluded that the relationship of the various operators and their customers was that of landlord *723 and tenant rather than bailor and bailee, and consequently the tax imposed on the amount of rentals received was a tax on property in violation of the uniformity requirement of article 7, section 1 of the Washington State Constitution as interpreted in Apartment Operators Ass'n of Seattle, Inc. v. Schumacher, 56 Wn.2d 46 , 351 P.2d 124 (1960).

2009Tunstall, 141 Wash.2d at 221 , 5 P.3d 691 . [16] ¶ 20 Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different base salary figures than for others. [17] Federal Way School District relies primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wash.2d 476 , 585 P.2d 71 and McGowan v. State, 148 Wash.2d 278 , 60 P.3d 67 (2002). [18] ¶ 21 Federal Way School District's reliance on Seattle School District No. 1 is misplaced.

2009Tunstall, 141 Wn.2d at 221 . 16 ¶20 Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different base salary figures than for others. 17 Federal Way School District relies primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wn.2d 476 and McGowan v. State, 148 Wn.2d 278 , 60 P.3d 67 (2002). 18 ¶21 Federal Way School District’s reliance on Seattle School District No. 1 is misplaced.

2009Tunstall, 141 Wash.2d at 221 , 5 P.3d 691 . [16] ¶ 20 Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different base salary figures than for others. [17] Federal Way School District relies primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wash.2d 476 , 585 P.2d 71 and McGowan v. State, 148 Wash.2d 278 , 60 P.3d 67 (2002). [18] ¶ 21 Federal Way School District's reliance on Seattle School District No. 1 is misplaced.

2009Tunstall, 141 Wn.2d at 221 . 16 ¶20 Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different base salary figures than for others. 17 Federal Way School District relies primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wn.2d 476 and McGowan v. State, 148 Wn.2d 278 , 60 P.3d 67 (2002). 18 ¶21 Federal Way School District’s reliance on Seattle School District No. 1 is misplaced.

2009Tunstall, 141 Wash.2d at 221 , 5 P.3d 691 . [16] ¶ 20 Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different base salary figures than for others. [17] Federal Way School District relies primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wash.2d 476 , 585 P.2d 71 and McGowan v. State, 148 Wash.2d 278 , 60 P.3d 67 (2002). [18] ¶ 21 Federal Way School District's reliance on Seattle School District No. 1 is misplaced.

2009Tunstall, 141 Wn.2d at 221 . 16 ¶20 Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different base salary figures than for others. 17 Federal Way School District relies primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wn.2d 476 and McGowan v. State, 148 Wn.2d 278 , 60 P.3d 67 (2002). 18 ¶21 Federal Way School District’s reliance on Seattle School District No. 1 is misplaced.

2009Tunstall, 141 Wash.2d at 221 , 5 P.3d 691 . [16] ¶ 20 Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different base salary figures than for others. [17] Federal Way School District relies primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wash.2d 476 , 585 P.2d 71 and McGowan v. State, 148 Wash.2d 278 , 60 P.3d 67 (2002). [18] ¶ 21 Federal Way School District's reliance on Seattle School District No. 1 is misplaced.

2009Tunstall, 141 Wn.2d at 221 . 16 ¶20 Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different base salary figures than for others. 17 Federal Way School District relies primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wn.2d 476 and McGowan v. State, 148 Wn.2d 278 , 60 P.3d 67 (2002). 18 ¶21 Federal Way School District’s reliance on Seattle School District No. 1 is misplaced.

2005In Fifteen-O-One Fourth Avenue Limited Partnership v. Department of Revenue, 49 Wn.

2005Id. at 301 .

1998Atwood v. Wooster, 163 Wash. 659 , 2 P.2d 653 (1931), for the proposition that the legislative authority to exempt property from taxation is wholly independent of the uniformity requirement.

1998Atwood v. Wooster, 163 Wash. 659 , 2 P.2d 653 (1931), for the proposition that the legislative authority to exempt property from taxation is wholly independent of the uniformity requirement.

1995It correctly observes that the "classic” test for constitutional conflict was initially stated in Bellingham v. Schampera, 57 Wn.2d 106, 111 , 356 P.2d 292 (1960).

1995It correctly observes that the "classic” test for constitutional conflict was initially stated in Bellingham v. Schampera, 57 Wn.2d 106, 111 , 356 P.2d 292 (1960).

2019Id. at 220. 31 39Wn.2d 191, 193, 235 P.2d 173 (1951). 32kLat 195. ~ Id. 34k1.at 196 (internal quotation marks omitted). 35kI.at 196-97. 8 No. 79447-7-119 income tax law, illustrating its true nature as an income tax.

2019Id. at 220. 31 39Wn.2d 191, 193, 235 P.2d 173 (1951). 32kLat 195. ~ Id. 34k1.at 196 (internal quotation marks omitted). 35kI.at 196-97. 8 No. 79447-7-119 income tax law, illustrating its true nature as an income tax.

2019Id. at 379 . 24 Ri at 378-79. 25 185 Wash. 209 , 53 P.2d 607 (1936). 26 kJ. at 212 (emphasis omitted) (quoting LAWS OF 1935, ch. 178, § 2). 27 Id. at 215, 217. 28 kI. at 217. 7 No. 79447-7-1/8 court held the purported excise tax was an income tax subject to the uniformity clause in article VII, section 1 29 Because the taxing scheme taxed income below $4,000 at three percent and income above $4,000 at four percent, it was an unconstitutional nonuniform tax on property.3° In 1951, Power, Inc. v. Huntley evaluated a statewide “corporation excise tax” that levied a four percent tax on a corporati

2019Id. at 379 . 24 Ri at 378-79. 25 185 Wash. 209 , 53 P.2d 607 (1936). 26 kJ. at 212 (emphasis omitted) (quoting LAWS OF 1935, ch. 178, § 2). 27 Id. at 215, 217. 28 kI. at 217. 7 No. 79447-7-1/8 court held the purported excise tax was an income tax subject to the uniformity clause in article VII, section 1 29 Because the taxing scheme taxed income below $4,000 at three percent and income above $4,000 at four percent, it was an unconstitutional nonuniform tax on property.3° In 1951, Power, Inc. v. Huntley evaluated a statewide “corporation excise tax” that levied a four percent tax on a corporati

2016State v. Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d 881 , 892 n.4, 214 P.3d 907 (2009).

2016State v. Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d 881 , 892 n.4, 214 P.3d 907 (2009).

2016The Ide court noted that the uniformity rule "does not preclude the legislature from selecting and classifying, in a proper and reasonable manner, the subjects of taxation." 35 Wash. at 586 .

2016The Ide court noted that the uniformity rule “does not preclude the legislature from selecting and classifying, in a proper and reasonable manner, the subjects of taxation.” 35 Wash. at 586 .

2016After a full consideration of the question presented, we are satisfied that the uniformity rule of taxation does not forbid a proper classification of the subjects of the tax, that the classification complained of is reasonable and proper, is sanctioned by usage, and violates no provision of the state constitution. 10 No. 33622-1-III; 33623-9-III City ofSpokane v. Spokane County (dissenting) 47 Wash. at 209 .

2016After a full consideration of the question presented, we are satisfied that the uniformity rule of taxation does not forbid a proper classification of the subjects of the tax, that the classification complained of is reasonable and proper, is sanctioned by usage, and violates no provision of the state constitution. 47 Wash. at 209 .

2009Tunstall, 141 Wash.2d at 221 , 5 P.3d 691 . [16] ¶ 20 Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different base salary figures than for others. [17] Federal Way School District relies primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wash.2d 476 , 585 P.2d 71 and McGowan v. State, 148 Wash.2d 278 , 60 P.3d 67 (2002). [18] ¶ 21 Federal Way School District's reliance on Seattle School District No. 1 is misplaced.

2008Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 143 Wash.2d 798, 805 , 23 P.3d 477 (2001); Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wash.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001).

2008Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 143 Wash.2d 798, 805 , 23 P.3d 477 (2001); Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wash.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001).

2008Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 143 Wash.2d 798, 805 , 23 P.3d 477 (2001); Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wash.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001).

2006Additionally, we need not reach the city's contention that the ordinance conflicts with the uniformity requirement of the state law or impairs contracts. [1] City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 119 Wash.App. 654, 662 , 79 P.3d 24 (2003). [2] "If the clerk finds the petition insufficient or if the commission refuses either to pass an initiative ordinance or order an election thereon, any taxpayer may commence an action in the superior court against the city . . . ." RCW 35.17.290. [3] The majority also cites Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Seattle, 94 Wash.2d 740, 745 , 620 P

2006Additionally, we need not reach the city's contention that the ordinance conflicts with the uniformity requirement of the state law or impairs contracts. [1] City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 119 Wash.App. 654, 662 , 79 P.3d 24 (2003). [2] "If the clerk finds the petition insufficient or if the commission refuses either to pass an initiative ordinance or order an election thereon, any taxpayer may commence an action in the superior court against the city . . . ." RCW 35.17.290. [3] The majority also cites Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Seattle, 94 Wash.2d 740, 745 , 620 P

2006Additionally, we need not reach the city's contention that the ordinance conflicts with the uniformity requirement of the state law or impairs contracts. [1] City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 119 Wash.App. 654, 662 , 79 P.3d 24 (2003). [2] "If the clerk finds the petition insufficient or if the commission refuses either to pass an initiative ordinance or order an election thereon, any taxpayer may commence an action in the superior court against the city . . . ." RCW 35.17.290. [3] The majority also cites Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Seattle, 94 Wash.2d 740, 745 , 620 P

2006Additionally, we need not reach the city's contention that the ordinance conflicts with the uniformity requirement of the state law or impairs contracts. [1] City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 119 Wash.App. 654, 662 , 79 P.3d 24 (2003). [2] "If the clerk finds the petition insufficient or if the commission refuses either to pass an initiative ordinance or order an election thereon, any taxpayer may commence an action in the superior court against the city . . . ." RCW 35.17.290. [3] The majority also cites Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Seattle, 94 Wash.2d 740, 745 , 620 P

1987In Teter v. Clark Cy., 104 Wn.2d 227 , 704 P.2d 1171 (1985), the Washington court upheld different rates for different categories of real property (residential, industrial, etc.) in assessment of storm sewer charges under a uniformity clause challenge.

1987In Teter v. Clark Cy., 104 Wn.2d 227 , 704 P.2d 1171 (1985), the Washington court upheld different rates for different categories of real property (residential, industrial, etc.) in assessment of storm sewer charges under a uniformity clause challenge.

1985Stiner v. Yelle, 174 Wash. 402 , 25 P.2d 91 (1933).

1985Stiner v. Yelle, 174 Wash. 402 , 25 P.2d 91 (1933).

1985Finally, a tax for the privilege of engaging in a particular business measured by the gross income or charges for the use of the premises is an excise tax and not a tax on property subject to the uniformity requirement of article 7, section 1 of the Washington State Constitution, citing PUD 3 v. State, 71 Wn.2d 211 , 427 P.2d 713 (1967); Black v. State, 67 Wn.2d 97 , 406 P.2d 761 (1965); State ex rel.

1985Finally, a tax for the privilege of engaging in a particular business measured by the gross income or charges for the use of the premises is an excise tax and not a tax on property subject to the uniformity requirement of article 7, section 1 of the Washington State Constitution, citing PUD 3 v. State, 71 Wn.2d 211 , 427 P.2d 713 (1967); Black v. State, 67 Wn.2d 97 , 406 P.2d 761 (1965); State ex rel.

1974The plaintiff cites Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wn.2d 755 , 489 P.2d 898 (1971), and Carkonen v. Williams, 76 Wn.2d 617 , 458 P.2d 280 (1969), for the contention that a departure from the 4-year revaluation schedule violates the equal protection clauses of our state and federal constitutions and the uniformity clause of our state constitution.

1974The plaintiff cites Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wn.2d 755 , 489 P.2d 898 (1971), and Carkonen v. Williams, 76 Wn.2d 617 , 458 P.2d 280 (1969), for the contention that a departure from the 4-year revaluation schedule violates the equal protection clauses of our state and federal constitutions and the uniformity clause of our state constitution.

1974The plaintiff cites Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wn.2d 755 , 489 P.2d 898 (1971), and Carkonen v. Williams, 76 Wn.2d 617 , 458 P.2d 280 (1969), for the contention that a departure from the 4-year revaluation schedule violates the equal protection clauses of our state and federal constitutions and the uniformity clause of our state constitution.

1974The plaintiff cites Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wn.2d 755 , 489 P.2d 898 (1971), and Carkonen v. Williams, 76 Wn.2d 617 , 458 P.2d 280 (1969), for the contention that a departure from the 4-year revaluation schedule violates the equal protection clauses of our state and federal constitutions and the uniformity clause of our state constitution.