Wash. Rev. Code » Title 82 · Chapter 82.29A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.29A.010 (2026)

Legislative findings and recognition

✓ 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) The legislature hereby recognizes that properties of the state of Washington, counties, school districts, and other municipal corporations are exempted by Article 7, section 1 of the state Constitution from property tax obligations, but that private lessees of such public properties receive substantial benefits from governmental services provided by units of government.
(b) The legislature further recognizes that a uniform method of taxation should apply to such leasehold interests in publicly owned property.
(c) The legislature finds that lessees of publicly owned property or community centers are entitled to those same governmental services and does hereby provide for a leasehold excise tax to fairly compensate governmental units for services rendered to such lessees of publicly owned property or community centers. For the purposes of this subsection, "community center" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 84.36.010.
(d) The legislature also finds that eliminating the property tax on property owned exclusively by federally recognized Indian tribes within the state requires that the leasehold excise tax also be applied to leasehold interests on tribally owned property.
(2) The legislature further finds that experience gained by lessors, lessees, and the department of revenue since enactment of the leasehold excise tax under this chapter has shed light on areas in the leasehold excise statutes that need explanation and clarification. The purpose of chapter 220, Laws of 1999 is to make those changes.
[ 2014 c 207 s 2; 2010 c 281 s 2; 1999 c 220 s 1; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 61 s 1.]

Notes:

Application—2014 c 207: See note following RCW 84.36.010.
Application—2010 c 281: See note following RCW 84.36.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1981–2019 · leading case: Washington Pub. Ports Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 62 P.3d 462 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington Pub. Ports Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 62 P.3d 462 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 82.29A.010(l)(a). Therefore, the LET is intended “to fairly compensate governmental units for services rendered to such lessees of publicly owned property.”
Mac Amusement Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 633 P.2d 68 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 4× “The legislature finds that lessees of publicly owned property are entitled to those same governmental services and does hereby provide for a leasehold excise tax to fairly compensate governmental units for services rendered to such lessees of publicly owned property.”
WPPA v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 62 P.3d 462 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 82.29A.010(1)(a). Therefore, the LET is intended "to fairly compensate governmental units for services rendered to such lessees of publicly owned property.”
In Re K-Fabricators, Inc., 135 B.R. 654 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1992). “This analysis is buttressed by the purpose section of the leasehold excise tax chapter, RCW 82.29A.010, in which the Legislature recognized that, notwithstanding Washington’s constitutional exemption of publicly-owned property from property taxes, private lessees of such…”
Des Moines Marina Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 124 Wash. App. 282 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “¶7 On the claim that charging nonresidents more for moorage violated the federal equal protection clause, the trial court ruled there was a rational basis for the City to *287 charge different rates for residents and nonresidents, but concluded that because the state leasehold…”
Crystal Mountain, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 295 P.3d 1216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “See RCW 82.29A.010(1). ¶26 The leasehold excise tax is levied “on the act or privilege of occupying or using publicly owned real or personal property .”
Des Moines Marina Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 100 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “On the claim that charging nonresidents more for moorage violated the federal equal protection clause, the trial court ruled there was a rational basis for the City to charge different rates for residents and nonresidents, but concluded that because the state leasehold excise…”
Peterson v. Port of Benton Cnty. (E.D. Wash. 2019). “RCW 82.29A.010. 2 Plaintiffs previously moved for summary judgment in their favor on their 3 claim for first amendment retaliation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.29A.010(1) — 3 cases
Crystal Mountain, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 295 P.3d 1216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “See RCW 82.29A.010(1). ¶26 The leasehold excise tax is levied “on the act or privilege of occupying or using publicly owned real or personal property .”
Des Moines Marina Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 124 Wash. App. 282 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “¶7 On the claim that charging nonresidents more for moorage violated the federal equal protection clause, the trial court ruled there was a rational basis for the City to *287 charge different rates for residents and nonresidents, but concluded that because the state leasehold…”
Des Moines Marina Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 100 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “On the claim that charging nonresidents more for moorage violated the federal equal protection clause, the trial court ruled there was a rational basis for the City to charge different rates for residents and nonresidents, but concluded that because the state leasehold excise…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.29A.010(1)(a) — 1 case
WPPA v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 62 P.3d 462 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 82.29A.010(1)(a). Therefore, the LET is intended "to fairly compensate governmental units for services rendered to such lessees of publicly owned property.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.29A.010(1)(c) — 2 cases
WPPA v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 62 P.3d 462 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 82.29A.010(1)(a). Therefore, the LET is intended "to fairly compensate governmental units for services rendered to such lessees of publicly owned property.”
Des Moines Marina Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 100 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “On the claim that charging nonresidents more for moorage violated the federal equal protection clause, the trial court ruled there was a rational basis for the City to charge different rates for residents and nonresidents, but concluded that because the state leasehold excise…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.29A.010(l)(a) — 2 cases
Washington Pub. Ports Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 62 P.3d 462 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 82.29A.010(l)(a). Therefore, the LET is intended “to fairly compensate governmental units for services rendered to such lessees of publicly owned property.”
Crystal Mountain, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 295 P.3d 1216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “See RCW 82.29A.010(1). ¶26 The leasehold excise tax is levied “on the act or privilege of occupying or using publicly owned real or personal property .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.29A.010(l)(c) — 2 cases
Washington Pub. Ports Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 62 P.3d 462 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 82.29A.010(l)(a). Therefore, the LET is intended “to fairly compensate governmental units for services rendered to such lessees of publicly owned property.”
Des Moines Marina Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 124 Wash. App. 282 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “¶7 On the claim that charging nonresidents more for moorage violated the federal equal protection clause, the trial court ruled there was a rational basis for the City to *287 charge different rates for residents and nonresidents, but concluded that because the state leasehold…”
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.