Wash. Rev. Code » Title 50 · Chapter 50.04

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Services performed by an individual for remuneration shall be deemed to be employment subject to this title unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that:
(1)(a) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such service, both under his or her contract of service and in fact; and
(b) Such service is either outside the usual course of business for which such service is performed, or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprises for which such service is performed; and
(c) Such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business, of the same nature as that involved in the contract of service.
(2) Or as a separate alternative, it shall not constitute employment subject to this title if it is shown that:
(a) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such service, both under his or her contract of service and in fact; and
(b) Such service is either outside the usual course of business for which such service is performed, or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprises for which such service is performed, or the individual is responsible, both under the contract and in fact, for the costs of the principal place of business from which the service is performed; and
(c) Such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business, of the same nature as that involved in the contract of service, or such individual has a principal place of business for the work the individual is conducting that is eligible for a business deduction for federal income tax purposes; and
(d) On the effective date of the contract of service, such individual is responsible for filing at the next applicable filing period, both under the contract of service and in fact, a schedule of expenses with the internal revenue service for the type of business the individual is conducting; and
(e) On the effective date of the contract of service, or within a reasonable period after the effective date of the contract, such individual has established an account with the department of revenue, and other state agencies as required by the particular case, for the business the individual is conducting for the payment of all state taxes normally paid by employers and businesses and has registered for and received a unified business identifier number from the state of Washington; and
(f) On the effective date of the contract of service, such individual is maintaining a separate set of books or records that reflect all items of income and expenses of the business which the individual is conducting.
[ 1991 c 246 s 6; 1945 c 35 s 15; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 9998-154. Prior: 1943 c 127 s 13; 1941 c 253 s 14; 1939 c 214 s 16; 1937 c 162 s 19.]

Notes:

Effective date—Conflict with federal requirements—1991 c 246: See notes following RCW 51.08.195.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case: Western Ports v. Employment SEC. Dept.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Western Ports v. Employment SEC. Dept. (2002) washctapp · cites it 11× “Marshall performed for Western Ports constituted "employment" as defined by RCW 50.04.140, and did not fall within the exemption provided by RCW 50.”
Western Ports Transportation, Inc. v. Employment Security Department (2002) washctapp · cites it 11× “Marshall performed for Western Ports constituted “employment” as defined by RCW 50.04.140, and did not fall within the exemption provided by RCW 50.”
Affordable Cabs, Inc. v. Employment Security Department (2004) washctapp · cites it 8× “We next discuss whether ACI is exempt from paying unemployment compensation contributions under RCW 50.04.140. RCW 50.04.140 Exemptions ¶17 Throughout the proceedings the parties have agreed that the relevant statutory exemption is that of RCW 50.”
Penick v. Employment Security Department (1996) washctapp · cites it 6× “We conclude that Penick failed to present evidence qualifying him for the exemption set forth in RCW 50.04.140. Thus, we affirm. FACTS Penick owns Double Eagle Trucking (Double Eagle), a sole proprietorship that engages in the interstate transportation of goods.”
Penick v. Employment SEC. Dept. (1996) washctapp · cites it 6× “We conclude that Penick failed to present evidence qualifying him for the exemption set forth in RCW 50.04.140. Thus, we affirm. FACTS Penick owns Double Eagle Trucking (Double Eagle), a sole proprietorship that engages in the interstate transportation of goods.”
Schuffenhauer v. Department of Employment Security (1975) wash · cites it 5× “1 The parties dispute, however, whether the services of clam diggers satisfy RCW 50.04.140 2 excluding certain services from the definition of employment.”
Chambers v. RDI Logistics, Inc. (2016) mass “21, § 1301 (6)(B) (2016); Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140 (2016); W. Va.”
Daily Herald Co. v. Department of Employment Security (1979) wash · cites it 2× “Personal services performed for an employing unit by one or more contractors or subcontractors acting individually or as a partnership, which do not meet the provisions of RCW 50.04.140, shall be considered employment of the employing unit: Provided, however, That such…”
Northwest Tool & Supply, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security (1976) washctapp · cites it 5× “performed for wages or under any contract calling for the performance of personal services .”
Cascade Nursing Services, Ltd. v. Employment Security Department (1993) washctapp · cites it 2× “The Department appeals, claiming the Superior Court erred in concluding that the nurses' services were exempt from taxation under the independent contractor exemption contained in RCW 50.04.140. Cascade cross-appeals, asserting the trial court erred in failing to find that the…”
Jerome v. Employment Security Department (1993) washctapp · cites it 3× “RCW 50.04.140 provides that personal services by an individual may be exempt from taxation if: (l)(a) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such sérvice, both under his or her contract of service and in fact; and…”
All-State Construction Co. v. Gordon (1967) wash · cites it 6× “Personal services performed for an employing unit by one or more contractors or subcontractors acting individually or as a partnership, which do not meet the provisions of RCW 50.04.140, shall be considered employment of the employing unit: Provided, however, That such…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140(1) — 11 cases
Affordable Cabs, Inc. v. Employment Security Department (2004) washctapp “We next discuss whether ACI is exempt from paying unemployment compensation contributions under RCW 50.04.140. RCW 50.04.140 Exemptions ¶17 Throughout the proceedings the parties have agreed that the relevant statutory exemption is that of RCW 50.”
Western Ports v. Employment SEC. Dept. (2002) washctapp “Marshall performed for Western Ports constituted "employment" as defined by RCW 50.04.140, and did not fall within the exemption provided by RCW 50.”
Western Ports Transportation, Inc. v. Employment Security Department (2002) washctapp “Marshall performed for Western Ports constituted “employment” as defined by RCW 50.04.140, and did not fall within the exemption provided by RCW 50.”
Penick v. Employment Security Department (1996) washctapp “We conclude that Penick failed to present evidence qualifying him for the exemption set forth in RCW 50.04.140. Thus, we affirm. FACTS Penick owns Double Eagle Trucking (Double Eagle), a sole proprietorship that engages in the interstate transportation of goods.”
Penick v. Employment SEC. Dept. (1996) washctapp “We conclude that Penick failed to present evidence qualifying him for the exemption set forth in RCW 50.04.140. Thus, we affirm. FACTS Penick owns Double Eagle Trucking (Double Eagle), a sole proprietorship that engages in the interstate transportation of goods.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140(1)(a) — 6 cases
Western Ports v. Employment SEC. Dept. (2002) washctapp “Marshall performed for Western Ports constituted "employment" as defined by RCW 50.04.140, and did not fall within the exemption provided by RCW 50.”
Penick v. Employment SEC. Dept. (1996) washctapp “We conclude that Penick failed to present evidence qualifying him for the exemption set forth in RCW 50.04.140. Thus, we affirm. FACTS Penick owns Double Eagle Trucking (Double Eagle), a sole proprietorship that engages in the interstate transportation of goods.”
Gulick Trucking, Inc. v. State Of Washington Employment Security Department (2018) washctapp
Swanson Hay Company v. Employment Security Department (2017) washctapp
ACI v. Department of Employment SEC. (2004) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140(1)(b) — 2 cases
Penick v. Employment SEC. Dept. (1996) washctapp “We conclude that Penick failed to present evidence qualifying him for the exemption set forth in RCW 50.04.140. Thus, we affirm. FACTS Penick owns Double Eagle Trucking (Double Eagle), a sole proprietorship that engages in the interstate transportation of goods.”
ACI v. Department of Employment SEC. (2004) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140(1)(c) — 2 cases
ACI v. Department of Employment SEC. (2004) washctapp
Gulick Trucking, Inc. v. State Of Washington Employment Security Department (2018) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140(2) — 1 case
In Re Miller (1970) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140(3) — 1 case
All-State Construction Co. v. Gordon (1967) wash “Personal services performed for an employing unit by one or more contractors or subcontractors acting individually or as a partnership, which do not meet the provisions of RCW 50.04.140, shall be considered employment of the employing unit: Provided, however, That such…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140(l)(a) — 2 cases
Affordable Cabs, Inc. v. Employment Security Department (2004) washctapp “We next discuss whether ACI is exempt from paying unemployment compensation contributions under RCW 50.04.140. RCW 50.04.140 Exemptions ¶17 Throughout the proceedings the parties have agreed that the relevant statutory exemption is that of RCW 50.”
Penick v. Employment Security Department (1996) washctapp “We conclude that Penick failed to present evidence qualifying him for the exemption set forth in RCW 50.04.140. Thus, we affirm. FACTS Penick owns Double Eagle Trucking (Double Eagle), a sole proprietorship that engages in the interstate transportation of goods.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140(l)(b) — 3 cases
Affordable Cabs, Inc. v. Employment Security Department (2004) washctapp “We next discuss whether ACI is exempt from paying unemployment compensation contributions under RCW 50.04.140. RCW 50.04.140 Exemptions ¶17 Throughout the proceedings the parties have agreed that the relevant statutory exemption is that of RCW 50.”
Penick v. Employment Security Department (1996) washctapp “We conclude that Penick failed to present evidence qualifying him for the exemption set forth in RCW 50.04.140. Thus, we affirm. FACTS Penick owns Double Eagle Trucking (Double Eagle), a sole proprietorship that engages in the interstate transportation of goods.”
Swanson Hay Company v. Employment Security Department (2017) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.140(l)(c) — 2 cases
Affordable Cabs, Inc. v. Employment Security Department (2004) washctapp “We next discuss whether ACI is exempt from paying unemployment compensation contributions under RCW 50.04.140. RCW 50.04.140 Exemptions ¶17 Throughout the proceedings the parties have agreed that the relevant statutory exemption is that of RCW 50.”
Jerome v. Employment Security Department (1993) washctapp “RCW 50.04.140 provides that personal services by an individual may be exempt from taxation if: (l)(a) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such sérvice, both under his or her contract of service and in fact; and…”
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.