Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.330 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Prior to January 1, 1951, the term "wages" shall not include the amount of any payment by an employing unit for or on behalf of an individual in its employ under a plan or system established by such employing unit which makes provision for individuals in its employ generally, or for a class or classes of such individuals (including any amount paid by an employing unit for insurance or annuities or into a fund to provide for any payment) on account of retirement, sickness or accident disability, or medical and hospitalization expenses in connection with sickness or accident disability. After December 31, 1950, the term "wages" shall not include:

(1) The amount of any payment made (including any amount paid by an employing unit for insurance or annuities, or into a fund to provide for any such payment), to, or on behalf of, an individual or any of his or her dependents under a plan or system established by an employing unit which makes provision generally for individuals performing service for it (or for such individuals generally and their dependents) or for a class or classes of such individuals (or for a class or classes of such individuals and their dependents), on account of (a) retirement, or (b) sickness or accident disability, or (c) medical or hospitalization expenses in connection with sickness or accident disability, or (d) death;

(2) The amount of any payment by an employing unit to an individual performing service for it (including any amount paid by an employing unit for insurance or annuities, or into a fund, to provide for any such payment) on account of retirement;

(3) The amount of any payment on account of sickness or accident disability, or medical or hospitalization expenses in connection with sickness or accident disability, made by an employing unit to, or on behalf of, an individual performing services for it after the expiration of six calendar months following the last calendar month in which the individual performed services for such employing unit;

(4) The amount of any payment made by an employing unit to, or on behalf of, an individual performing services for it or his or her beneficiary (a) from or to a trust exempt from tax under section 165(a) of the federal internal revenue code at the time of such payment unless such payment is made to an individual performing services for the trust as remuneration for such services and not as a beneficiary of the trust, or (b) under or to an annuity plan which, at the time of such payments, meets the requirements of section 165(a)(3), (4), (5), and (6) of the federal internal revenue code; or

(5) The amount of any payment (other than vacation or sick pay) made to an individual after the month in which he or she attains the age of sixty-five, if he or she did not perform services for the employing unit in the period for which such payment is made.

[ 2010 c 8 s 13007; 1951 c 265 s 4; 1949 c 214 s 5; 1945 c 35 s 34; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 9998-173. Prior: 1943 c 127 s 13; 1941 c 253 s 14; 1939 c 214 s 16; 1937 c 162 s 19.]

Notes:

Severability—1951 c 265: See note following RCW 50.98.070.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2001 · leading case: Cockle v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 16 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cockle v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 16 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “RCW 50.04.330. It would seem exceedingly anomalous for the Legislature to include benefits within the definition of wages under the Act and yet cap the calculation of wages for purposes of time loss payments by a figure that expressly excludes the payment of such benefits.”

Cockle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. 2d 801 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “RCW 50.04.330. It would seem exceedingly anomalous for the Legislature to include benefits within the definition of wages under the Act and yet cap the calculation of wages for purposes of time-loss payments by a figure that expressly excludes the payment of such benefits.”

Edinger v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 793 P.2d 1004 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “See RCW 50.04.330. Thus, more unemployment insurance tax is paid on behalf of nonunion workers whose entire compensation is taxable *530 wages.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.330(1) — 2 cases

Cockle v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 16 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 50.04.330. It would seem exceedingly anomalous for the Legislature to include benefits within the definition of wages under the Act and yet cap the calculation of wages for purposes of time loss payments by a figure that expressly excludes the payment of such benefits.”

Cockle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. 2d 801 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 50.04.330. It would seem exceedingly anomalous for the Legislature to include benefits within the definition of wages under the Act and yet cap the calculation of wages for purposes of time-loss payments by a figure that expressly excludes the payment of such benefits.”

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.