Wash. Rev. Code » Title 82 · Chapter 82.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.24.260 (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) Other than:
(a) A wholesaler required to be licensed under this chapter;
(b) A federal instrumentality with respect to sales to authorized military personnel; or
(c) An Indian tribal organization with respect to sales to enrolled members of the tribe,
a person who is in lawful possession of unstamped cigarettes and who intends to sell or otherwise dispose of the cigarettes shall pay, or satisfy its precollection obligation that is imposed by this chapter, the tax required by this chapter by remitting the tax or causing stamps to be affixed in the manner provided in rules adopted by the department.
(2) When stamps are required to be affixed, the person may deduct from the tax collected the compensation allowable under this chapter. The remittance or the affixing of stamps shall, in the case of cigarettes obtained in the manner set forth in RCW 82.24.250(7)(c), be made at the same time and manner as required in RCW 82.24.250(7)(c).
(3) This section shall not relieve the buyer or possessor of unstamped cigarettes from personal liability for the tax imposed by this chapter.
(4) Nothing in this section shall relieve a wholesaler from the requirements of affixing stamps pursuant to RCW 82.24.040 and 82.24.050.
[ 2003 c 114 s 9; 1995 c 278 s 11; 1987 c 80 s 3; 1986 c 3 s 13. Prior: 1983 c 189 s 3; 1983 c 3 s 217; 1975 1st ex.s. c 22 s 1; 1972 ex.s. c 157 s 7.]

Notes:

Effective date—1995 c 278: See note following RCW 82.24.010.
Effective dates—1986 c 3: See note following RCW 70A.135.010.
Severability—1983 c 189: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1983 c 189 s 10.]
Severability—1972 ex.s. c 157: See note following RCW 82.24.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1974–2009 · leading case: Bercier v. Kiga, 103 P.3d 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bercier v. Kiga, 103 P.3d 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “He argues he should be exempt from all Washington excise taxes and regulations because, as a member of the Fort Peck Indian Tribe who resides and sells tobacco products on the Puyallup Indian reservation, he is an Indian doing business on Indian trust land, entitled to…”
Bercier v. Kiga, 127 Wash. App. 809 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “He argues he should be exempt from all Washington excise taxes and regulations because, as a member of the Fort Peck Indian Tribe who resides and sells tobacco products on the Puyallup Indian reservation, he is an Indian doing business *813 on Indian trust land, entitled to…”
Tonasket v. State, 525 P.2d 744 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 10× “RCW 82.24.260. On March 10, 1972, the Colville Business Council enacted *171 the Colville Tobacco Ordinance.”
Matheson v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 130 P.3d 897 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 82.24.260(1)(c). Mr. Matheson contends he is an Indian tribal organization.”
Matheson v. State Liquor Control Bd., 130 P.3d 897 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “040(2)(b); RCW 82.24.260(1). And, a Washington licensed wholesaler who pays a surety bond may possess extra "stock" to conduct business.”
Nisqually Indian Tribe v. Gregoire, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (W.D. Wash. 2009). “§ 82.24.260(1). The tribal exemption does not extend to sales to non-Indians or to Indians who are not members of the Tribe.”
United States v. Fiander, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (E.D. Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 82.24.260(1)(c). An Indian tribal organization is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe or tribal entity, including a wholesaler or retailer owned by a tribal member and doing business under a tribal license.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.24.260(1) — 4 cases
Bercier v. Kiga, 103 P.3d 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “He argues he should be exempt from all Washington excise taxes and regulations because, as a member of the Fort Peck Indian Tribe who resides and sells tobacco products on the Puyallup Indian reservation, he is an Indian doing business on Indian trust land, entitled to…”
Bercier v. Kiga, 127 Wash. App. 809 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “He argues he should be exempt from all Washington excise taxes and regulations because, as a member of the Fort Peck Indian Tribe who resides and sells tobacco products on the Puyallup Indian reservation, he is an Indian doing business *813 on Indian trust land, entitled to…”
Matheson v. State Liquor Control Bd., 130 P.3d 897 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “040(2)(b); RCW 82.24.260(1). And, a Washington licensed wholesaler who pays a surety bond may possess extra "stock" to conduct business.”
Nisqually Indian Tribe v. Gregoire, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (W.D. Wash. 2009). “§ 82.24.260(1). The tribal exemption does not extend to sales to non-Indians or to Indians who are not members of the Tribe.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.24.260(1)(c) — 5 cases
Bercier v. Kiga, 103 P.3d 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “He argues he should be exempt from all Washington excise taxes and regulations because, as a member of the Fort Peck Indian Tribe who resides and sells tobacco products on the Puyallup Indian reservation, he is an Indian doing business on Indian trust land, entitled to…”
Bercier v. Kiga, 127 Wash. App. 809 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “He argues he should be exempt from all Washington excise taxes and regulations because, as a member of the Fort Peck Indian Tribe who resides and sells tobacco products on the Puyallup Indian reservation, he is an Indian doing business *813 on Indian trust land, entitled to…”
Matheson v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 130 P.3d 897 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 82.24.260(1)(c). Mr. Matheson contends he is an Indian tribal organization.”
Matheson v. State Liquor Control Bd., 130 P.3d 897 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “040(2)(b); RCW 82.24.260(1). And, a Washington licensed wholesaler who pays a surety bond may possess extra "stock" to conduct business.”
United States v. Fiander, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (E.D. Wash. 2005). “RCW 82.24.260(1)(c). An Indian tribal organization is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe or tribal entity, including a wholesaler or retailer owned by a tribal member and doing business under a tribal license.”
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.