Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.32.030 (2026)

Appeal from order and notice of assessment

✓ current as of May 2026

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

When an order and notice of assessment has been served upon or mailed to a delinquent employer, as heretofore provided, such employer may within thirty days thereafter file a petition in writing with the appeal tribunal, stating that such assessment is unjust or incorrect and requesting a hearing thereon. Such petition shall set forth the reasons why the assessment is objected to and the amount of contributions, if any, which said employer admits to be due the employment security department. If no such petition be filed with the appeal tribunal within thirty days, the assessment shall be conclusively deemed to be just and correct: PROVIDED, That in such cases, and in cases where payment of contributions, interest, or penalties has been made pursuant to a jeopardy assessment, the commissioner may properly entertain a subsequent application for refund. The filing of a petition on a disputed assessment with the appeal tribunal shall stay the distraint and sale proceeding provided for in this title until a final decision thereon shall have been made, but the filing of such petition shall not affect the right of the commissioner to perfect a lien, as provided by this title, upon the property of the employer. The filing of a petition on a disputed assessment shall stay the accrual of interest and penalties on the disputed contributions until a final decision shall have been made thereon.

Within thirty days after notice of denial of refund or adjustment has been mailed or delivered (whichever is the earlier) to an employer, the employer may file a petition in writing with the appeal tribunal for a hearing thereon: PROVIDED, That this right shall not apply in those cases in which assessments have been appealed from and have become final. The petitioner shall set forth the reasons why such hearing should be granted and the amount which the petitioner believes should be adjusted or refunded. If no such petition be filed within said thirty days, the determination of the commissioner as stated in said notice shall be final.

[ 1987 c 111 s 6; 1987 c 61 s 2; 1983 1st ex.s. c 23 s 20; 1959 c 266 s 7; 1949 c 214 s 23; 1945 c 35 s 119; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 9998-257.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1987 c 61 s 2 and by 1987 c 111 s 6, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section pursuant to RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).

Conflict with federal requirements—Severability—Effective date—1987 c 111: See notes following RCW 50.12.220.

Conflict with federal requirements—Effective dates—Construction—1983 1st ex.s. c 23: See notes following RCW 50.04.073.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1967–2017 · leading case: Safeco Ins. v. Meyering, 687 P.2d 195 (Wash. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Safeco Ins. v. Meyering, 687 P.2d 195 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 50.32.030. We believe that Meyering should be given the opportunity to argue that she voluntarily quit with "good cause", as that term is used in RCW 50.”

Cascade Nursing Servs., Ltd. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 856 P.2d 421 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “902 states that "Mule-making actions or other agency proceedings begun before July 1, 1989, shall be completed under the applicable provisions of chapter .”

Washington Trucking Ass'n v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 192 Wash. App. 621 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Each carrier timely appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings pursuant to RCW 50.32.030. The appeals were assigned to an administrative law judge (ALJ).”

All-State Constr. Co. v. Gordon, 425 P.2d 16 (Wash. 1967). “All-State appealed therefrom to the appeal tribunal under RCW 50.32.030, contending that the individuals whose wages or remunerations were covered by the assessment were not employees under the terms of the Employment Security Act and, consequently, no payment was due from…”

Wash. Trucking Ass'ns v. Emp't Sec. Dep't (Wash. 2017). · cites it 2× “The Carriers timely appealed the assessments to the Office of Administrative Hearings pursuant to RCW 50.32.030. In that tribunal, they filed a consolidated motion for summary judgment, arguing that the owner-operators are independent contractors or otherwise exempt from…”

Macmillan-piper, Inc. v. Dep't Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “55 MacMillan does not offer compelling authority that those same fundamental rights attach to an audit, or that a de novo hearing and two stages of judicial review did not ameliorate those concerns.”

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.