Wash. Rev. Code » Title 82 · Chapter 82.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.04.500 (2026)

Tax part of operating overhead

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is not the intention of this chapter that the taxes herein levied upon persons engaging in business be construed as taxes upon the purchasers or customers, but that such taxes shall be levied upon, and collectible from, the person engaging in the business activities herein designated and that such taxes shall constitute a part of the operating overhead of such persons.
[ 1961 c 15 s 82.04.500. Prior: 1935 c 180 s 14; RRS s 8370-14.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 2005–2018 · leading case: Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 157 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 157 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 32× “[3] He also asked the court to enjoin Appleway's future collection of B & O tax from customers and prayed for monetary relief, claiming Appleway was unjustly enriched.”
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 160 Wash. 2d 173 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 31× “RCW 82.04.500. We apply unambiguous statutes according to their plain language.”
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 129 Wash. App. 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 22× “” RCW 82.04.500. Herbert Nelson purchased a vehicle from Appleway Volkswagen.”
Davenport v. Washington Educ. Ass'n, 197 P.3d 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “23 under protest [65] and filed a class action lawsuit in which the parties debated whether a statute, RCW 82.04.500, permitted B & O tax to be passed through to the customer.”
Davenport v. Washington Educ. Ass'n, 147 Wash. App. 704 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “23 under protest 64 and filed a class action lawsuit in which the parties debated whether a statute, RCW 82.04.500, permitted B&O tax to be passed through to the customer.”
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 121 P.3d 95 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 27× “" RCW 82.04.500. Herbert Nelson purchased a vehicle from Appleway Volkswagen.”
Johnson v. Camp Auto., Inc., 199 P.3d 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “, (collectively "Camp") appeals the trial court's summary judgment grant to Marcia and Theron Johnson on their claim that Camp violated both RCW 82.04.500 and Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19.”
Johnson v. Camp Auto., Inc., 148 Wash. App. 181 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “(collectively Camp) appeals the trial court’s summary judgment grant to Marcia and Theron Johnson on their claim that Camp violated both RCW 82.04.500 and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19.”
Seattle Times Co. v. Leathercare, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 3d 999 (W.D. Wash. 2018). · cites it 3× “326%, does not support the requested figure of 4.414%. The Court further concludes that Seattle Times cannot be required under the ERIA and LeatherCare is not obligated under MTCA to pay the proposed B & O tax surcharges of 0.”
Peck v. AT&T Mobility, 174 Wash. 2d 333 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 31× “¶1 This certified question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals centers on whether under RCW 82.04.500, a seller may, upon disclosure, recoup its business and occupation (B&O) tax by collecting a surcharge to recover gross receipts taxes in addition to its monthly service fee.”
Peck v. At & T Mobility, 275 P.3d 304 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 34× “¶ 1 This certified question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals centers on whether under RCW 82.04.500, a seller may, upon disclosure, recoup its business and occupation (B & O) tax by collecting a surcharge to recover gross receipts taxes in addition to its monthly service…”
Everi Payments Inc., V Wa State Dept Of Revenue, 432 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). ““Gross income of the business” is “the value proceeding or accruing by reason of the transaction of the business engaged in” without deductions of business services. RCW 82.”
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.