Wash. Rev. Code » Title 82 · Chapter 82.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.08.120 (2025)

Refunding or rebating of tax by seller prohibited—Penalty

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whoever, excepting as expressly authorized by this chapter, refunds, remits, or rebates to a buyer, either directly or indirectly and by whatever means, all or any part of the tax levied by this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The violation of this section by any person holding a license granted by the state or any political subdivision thereof shall be sufficient grounds for the cancellation of the license of such person upon written notification by the department of revenue to the proper officer of the department granting the license that such person has violated the provisions of this section. Before any license shall be canceled hereunder, the licensee shall be entitled to a hearing before the department granting the license under such regulations as the department may prescribe.
[ 1985 c 38 s 4; 1975 1st ex.s. c 278 s 51; 1961 c 15 s 82.08.120. Prior: 1939 c 225 s 13; 1935 c 180 s 27; RRS s 8370-27.]

Notes:

Construction—Severability—1975 1st ex.s. c 278: See notes following RCW 11.08.160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1956–1986 · leading case: Ginsberg v. Washington (In Re Olympic Foundry Co.), 63 B.R. 324 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ginsberg v. Washington (In Re Olympic Foundry Co.), 63 B.R. 324 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1986). “RCW 82.08.120. *327 It is clear from the language of the statute that the funds collected for retail sales taxes are to be held in trust for the State which have the beneficial interest in them.”
Urban Constr. Co. v. Seattle Urban League, 533 P.2d 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “First, is the League responsible for the sales tax as a matter of law; second, was the action barred by the statute of limitations, and, third, if the action is not barred by the statute of limitations, is laches available as an affirmative defense? A contract silent as to sales…”
Stoen v. French Slough Flood Control Dist., 407 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 4× “The appeal presents a single issue: Do the provisions of RCW 82.08.120, infra, prohibit a prospective consumer from requiring that a prospective seller include in his selling price the amount of the state retail sales tax applicable to the sale? *444 RCW 82.”
S. S. Mullen, Inc. v. Marshland Flood Control Dist., 407 P.2d 990 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 5× “That RCW 82.08.120 forbids absorption of the tax by the seller and RCW 82.”
Irwin v. Sanders, 304 P.2d 697 (Wash. 1956). “RCW 82.08.120 [cf. Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 8370-27] prohibits the seller from absorbing the tax.”
Pomeroy v. Anderson, 649 P.2d 855 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The issue in those cases arose under RCW 82.08.120, a *784 statute that forbids the absorption of sales tax by the seller.”
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.