Wash. Rev. Code » Title 82 · Chapter 82.03
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.03.140 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A party filing an appeal with the board must elect either a formal or an informal proceeding, according to rules of practice and procedure adopted by the board. If no such election is made, the appeal must be treated as an election for an informal proceeding: PROVIDED, That nothing prevents the assessor or taxpayer, as a party to an appeal pursuant to RCW 84.08.130, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of the notice of appeal, from filing with the clerk of the board notice of intention that the hearing be a formal one: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That nothing herein may be construed to modify the provisions of RCW 82.03.190: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That upon an appeal under RCW 82.03.130(1) (c), (d), (e), (h), (i), or (j), the director of revenue may, within 10 days from the date of its receipt of the notice of appeal, file with the clerk of the board notice of its intention that the hearing be held pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW.
(2) A responding party may file a cross appeal. In the event that appeals are taken by different parties from the same decision, order, or determination, and only one party elects a formal proceeding, the appeal must be conducted as a formal proceeding.
[ 2023 c 28 s 1; 2018 c 174 s 13; 2000 c 103 s 1; 1988 c 222 s 4; 1982 1st ex.s. c 46 s 8; 1967 ex.s. c 26 s 43.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1974–2010 · leading case: Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Dep't of Revenue, 156 Wash. App. 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Dep't of Revenue, 156 Wash. App. 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× ““[W]hen the [Board’s] decision has been rendered pursuant to a formal hearing elected under RCW 82.03.140 or 82.03.190 . . . judicial review may be obtained only pursuant to RCW 34.”
Sprint Spectrum v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 235 P.3d 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “"[W]hen the [Board's] decision has been rendered pursuant to a formal hearing elected under RCW 82.03.140 or 82.03.190 *851 . . . judicial review may be obtained only pursuant to RCW 34.”
King Cnty. v. Washington State Bd. of Tax Appeals, 622 P.2d 898 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Whitney-Fidalgo then appealed to the Board of Tax *233 Appeals (BTA), electing an informal hearing under RCW 82.03.140. BTA reversed the Board of Equalization and disallowed the omitted value assessments.”
Del Pettit v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 538 P.2d 501 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 2× “RCW 82.03.140 permits one appealing from a decision of the Board of Equalization to elect formal hearings before the Board of Tax Appeals.”
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Pierce Cnty., 529 P.2d 9 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “On March 10, 1971, the plaintiff petitioned the Board of Tax Appeals of the State of Washington for review of the decision by the Pierce County Board of Equalization, and requested an informal hearing pursuant to RCW 82.03.140. During this time period the Pierce County treasurer…”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Easter, 894 P.2d 1290 (Wash. 1995). “Weyerhaeuser appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (Board) and, under RCW 82.03.140, elected a formal hearing. For 8 days in December 1991, the Board heard testimony from Weyerhaeuser and the County.”
Bitney v. Morgan, 523 P.2d 929 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “At this time some taxpayers requested a formal hearing pursuant to RCW 82.03.140, while approximately 59 appeals were considered as informal appeals.”
Transamerica Title Ins. v. Hoppe, 611 P.2d 1361 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “180 reads as follows: *153 Judicial review of a decision of the board of tax appeals shall be de novo in accordance with the provisions of RCW 82.”
Todric Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 37 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Todric appealed the Department’s denial of its refund application to the Board of Tax Appeals (Board) and elected an informal de novo hearing under *788 RCW 82.03.140. On February 16, 1996, the Board upheld the Department’s earlier decision that Todric was taxable as a laundry…”
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.