Wash. Rev. Code » Title 43 · Chapter 43.01
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.01.072 (2026)

Refund of fees or other payments collected by state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever any law which provides for the collection of fees or other payments by a state agency does not authorize the refund of erroneous or excessive payments thereof, refunds may be made or authorized by the state agency which collected the fees or payments of all such amounts received by the state agency in consequence of error, either of fact or of law as to: (1) The proper amount of such fee or payments; (2) The necessity of making or securing a permit, filing, examination or inspection; (3) The sufficiency of the credentials of an applicant; (4) The eligibility of an applicant for any other reason; (5) The necessity for the payment.
[ 1965 c 8 s 43.01.072. Prior: 1955 c 224 s 1.]

Notes:

Refunds of fees or other payments, budget and accounting system: RCW 43.88.170.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2009–2020 · leading case: Clark Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dep't of Revenue, 222 P.3d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clark Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dep't of Revenue, 222 P.3d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “Instead, the Department argued that “[i]f a refund were appropriate, the correct limitations period would be three years from the date the tax payments were made. The three years is based upon RCW 4.”
Blue Spirits Distilling, Llc v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “Similarly, RCW 43.01.072 provides: Whenever any law which provides for the collection of fees or other payments by a state agency does not authorize the refund of erroneous or excessive payments thereof, refunds may be made or authorized by the state agency which collected the…”
CLARK Cnty. PUD v. Dept. of Revenue, 222 P.3d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “Instead, the Department argued that "[i]f a refund were appropriate, the correct limitations period would be three years from the date the tax payments were made.”
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.