Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.21

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.21.714

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Any city which imposes a license fee or tax upon the business activity of engaging in the telephone business which is measured by gross receipts or gross income may impose the fee or tax, if it desires, on one hundred percent of the total gross revenue derived from intrastate toll telephone services subject to the fee or tax: PROVIDED, That the city shall not impose the fee or tax on that portion of network telephone service which represents charges to another telecommunications company, as defined in RCW 80.04.010, for connecting fees, switching charges, or carrier access charges relating to intrastate toll telephone services, or for access to, or charges for, interstate services, or charges for network telephone service that is purchased for the purpose of resale, or charges for mobile telecommunications services provided to customers whose place of primary use is not within the city.
(2) Any city that imposes a license tax or fee under subsection (1) of this section has the authority, rights, and obligations of a taxing jurisdiction as provided in RCW 82.32.490 through 82.32.510.
(3) The definitions in RCW 82.04.065 and 82.16.010 apply to this section.
[ 2007 c 6 s 1018; 2007 c 6 s 1017; 2002 c 67 s 9; 1989 c 103 s 1; 1986 c 70 s 1; 1983 2nd ex.s. c 3 s 37; 1981 c 144 s 10.]

Notes:

Contingent effective date—2007 c 6 ss 1003, 1006, 1014, and 1018: See note following RCW 82.04.065.
Part headings not law—Savings—Effective date—Severability—2007 c 6: See notes following RCW 82.32.020.
Findings—Intent—2007 c 6: See note following RCW 82.14.390.
Finding—Effective date—2002 c 67: See notes following RCW 82.04.530.
Severability—1989 c 103: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 103 s 5.]
Effective date—1986 c 70 ss 1, 2, 4, and 5: "Sections 1, 2, 4, and 5 of this act shall take effect on January 1, 1987." [ 1986 c 70 s 8.]
Construction—Severability—Effective dates—1983 2nd ex.s. c 3: See notes following RCW 82.04.255.
Intent—Severability—Effective date—1981 c 144: See notes following RCW 82.16.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1999–2017 · leading case: Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue (2007) wash · cites it 6× “82.060(1) prohibits code cities from imposing taxes on any charges "for access to, or charges for, interstate services.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue (2007) wash · cites it 6× “060(1) prohibits code cities from imposing taxes on any charges “for access to, or charges for, interstate services.”
Community Telecable v. City of Seattle Doa (2006) washctapp · cites it 8× “Comcast reasons that this statute bars the City from taxing its data transmission activities because all of the Internet traffic from Comcast's Seattle subscribers is delivered to an out-of-state location.”
Community Telecable of Seattle, Inc. v. City of Seattle (2006) washctapp · cites it 8× “Tax on Interstate Services ¶23 Comcast argues that the City’s tax on telephone business is illegal because RCW 35.21.714 prohibits cities from imposing their telephone utility taxes on interstate service.”
Vonage America, Inc. v. City of Seattle (2009) washctapp · cites it 6× “Vonage contends the assessment is erroneous because (1) it is not authorized under RCW 35.21.714 because VoIP service is “interstate” as a matter of law, (2) the State’s “Internet Tax Moratorium” exemption applies, and (3) Vonage lacks a substantial nexus with the City under the…”
Western Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma (2000) wash “Rather, it was the result of an analysis by DOR's advisory committee of the tax treatment of cellular telecommunications and paging services, as well as the promulgation of a model ordinance.”
Western Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma Department of Financing (2000) wash “RCW 35.21.714. As such, Tacoma did not raise the B&O tax rate on such services, and RCW 35.”
Community Telecable of Seattle, Inc. v. CITY OF SEATTLE, DEPT. OF EXECUTIVE (2008) wash “717, we need not reach the remaining arguments addressed by the parties, including the application of RCW 35.21.714 or the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, Pub.”
Community Telecable of Seattle, Inc. v. City of Seattle, Department of Executive Administration (2008) wash “717, we need not reach the remaining arguments addressed by the parties, including the application of RCW 35.21.714 or the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, Pub.”
Western Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma (1999) washctapp “RCW 35.21.714. Also, the City may not increase B&O taxes within a tax classification in excess of two percent per year.”
City of Seattle v. T-Mobile West Corp. (2017) washctapp · cites it 8× “¶4 The city obtained a writ of review in King County Superior Court as permitted by RCW 7.”
Vonage America, Inc. v. City of Seattle (2009) washctapp · cites it 7× “Vonage contends the assessment is erroneous because (1) it is not authorized under RCW 35.21.714 because VoIP service is "interstate" as a matter of law, (2) the *1031 State's "Internet Tax Moratorium" exemption applies, and (3) Vonage lacks a substantial nexus with the City…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 35.21.714(1) — 5 cases
Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue (2007) wash “82.060(1) prohibits code cities from imposing taxes on any charges "for access to, or charges for, interstate services.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue (2007) wash “060(1) prohibits code cities from imposing taxes on any charges “for access to, or charges for, interstate services.”
Vonage America, Inc. v. City of Seattle (2009) washctapp “Vonage contends the assessment is erroneous because (1) it is not authorized under RCW 35.21.714 because VoIP service is “interstate” as a matter of law, (2) the State’s “Internet Tax Moratorium” exemption applies, and (3) Vonage lacks a substantial nexus with the City under the…”
City of Seattle v. T-Mobile West Corp. (2017) washctapp “¶4 The city obtained a writ of review in King County Superior Court as permitted by RCW 7.”
Vonage America, Inc. v. City of Seattle (2009) washctapp “Vonage contends the assessment is erroneous because (1) it is not authorized under RCW 35.21.714 because VoIP service is "interstate" as a matter of law, (2) the *1031 State's "Internet Tax Moratorium" exemption applies, and (3) Vonage lacks a substantial nexus with the City…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.