Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.04.4286 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

In computing tax there may be deducted from the measure of tax amounts derived from business which the state is prohibited from taxing under the Constitution of this state or the Constitution or laws of the United States.

[ 1980 c 37 s 7. Formerly RCW 82.04.430(6).]

Notes:

Intent—1980 c 37: See note following RCW 82.04.4281.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1983–2016 · leading case: Homestreet, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 210 P.3d 297 (Wash. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Homestreet, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 210 P.3d 297 (Wash. 2009). “¶ 48 By comparison to RCW 82.04.4286 (and analogy to Red Cedar Shingle Bureau ), it is apparent that by listing only "interest" as the source of income that may be deducted, the legislature meant in RCW 82.”

HomeStreet, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 166 Wash. 2d 444 (Wash. 2009). “¶48 By comparison to RCW 82.04.4286 (and analogy to Red Cedar Shingle Bureau), it is apparent that by listing *464 only “interest” as the source of income that may be deducted, the legislature meant in RCW 82.”

Nat'l Can Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 749 P.2d 1286 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “I State Law In order to reach the retroactivity issue, this court must first decide if Washington state statutory law or state case law mandates refunds of taxes paid prior to the Supreme Court's Tyler decision.”

Avnet, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 384 P.3d 571 (Wash. 2016). “2d 622 (1970))); RCW 82.04.4286 (“In computing tax there may be deducted from the measure of tax amounts derived from business which the state is prohibited from taxing under the Constitution of this state or the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

W.R. Grace & Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1011 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 82.04.4286: Deductions—Nontaxable business.”

Coast Pac. Trading, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 719 P.2d 541 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “" RCW 82.04.4286. 3 Arguably, the Michelin and Stevedoring decisions have reduced the scope of the constitutional prohibition of export and import taxes.”

Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 659 P.2d 463 (Wash. 1983). “'"Gross proceeds of sales' means the value proceeding or accruing from the sale of tangible personal property and/or for services rendered," without any deduction for costs of material or labor or any other expenses.”

Grace v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1011 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “[15] This case falls within the constitutional "bait and switch" prohibition because at all times material hereto every Washington taxpayer has enjoyed, and even now does enjoy, the statutory right to (1) simply lawfully refuse to pay an unconstitutional tax in the first place,…”

Avnet, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue (Wash. 2016). “2d 622 (1970))); RCW 82.04.4286 ("In computing tax there may be deducted from the measure of tax amotmts derived from business which the state is prohibited from taxing under the Constitution of this state or the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

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.