Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.32.170 (2026)

Reduction of tax after payment—Petition—Conference—Determination by department

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Any person, having paid any tax, original assessment, additional assessment, or corrected assessment of any tax, may apply to the department within the time limitation for refund provided in this chapter, by petition in writing for a correction of the amount paid, and a conference for examination and review of the tax liability, in which petition he or she shall set forth the reasons why the conference should be granted, and the amount in which the tax, interest, or penalty, should be refunded. The department shall promptly consider the petition, and may grant or deny it. If denied, the petitioner shall be notified by mail, or electronically as provided in RCW 82.32.135, thereof forthwith. If a conference is granted, the department shall notify the petitioner by mail, or electronically as provided in RCW 82.32.135, of the time and place fixed therefor. After the hearing, the department may make such determination as may appear to it just and lawful, and shall mail a copy of its determination to the petitioner, or provide a copy of its determination electronically as provided in RCW 82.32.135.

[ 2013 c 23 s 324; 2007 c 111 s 111; 1967 ex.s. c 26 s 50; 1961 c 15 s 82.32.170. Prior: 1951 1st ex.s. c 9 s 11; 1939 c 225 s 29, part; 1935 c 180 s 199, part; RRS s 8370-199, part.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—2007 c 111: See note following RCW 82.16.120.

Effective date—1967 ex.s. c 26: See note following RCW 82.01.050.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2023 · leading case: Peters v. Sjoholm, 631 P.2d 937 (Wash. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peters v. Sjoholm, 631 P.2d 937 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 2× “He could have applied for a refund and for a conference to examine and review the tax liability, RCW 82.32.170, or appealed to the Superior Court for Thurston County for a refund, RCW 82.”

Dep't of Revenue v. Sec. Pac. Bank of Washington Nat'l Ass'n, 109 Wash. App. 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “060 and RCW 82.32.170. In December 1992, the Department denied the portion of Security’s refund application concerning the revolving lines of credit.”

Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. State, 403 P.2d 880 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 2× “Once the assessment became final, then plaintiffs could proceed under either RCW 82.32.170 or RCW 82.32.180. Whether the commission did or did not issue an assessment is immaterial.”

State Dept. of Rev. v. Sec. Pac. Bank, 38 P.3d 354 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “060 and RCW 82.32.170. In December 1992, the Department *357 denied the portion of Security's refund application concerning the revolving lines of credit.”

Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., V. State Of Wa, Dept Of Revenue, 524 P.3d 1066 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The Board found that Envolve was entitled to rely on the Department’s precedent and that any activities that were “functionally related” to insurance qualified as “insurance business” activities exempt from B&O tax 4 RCW 82.32.170 allows taxpayers to petition for determining…”

Betts Patterson & Mines Ps, App. v. State Of Wa., Dept. Of Revenue, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “BPM thus asserts that we should consider its appeal even if it is moot because it raises a recurring issue critical to the public interest—the proper administrative process for requesting tax refunds. We are not persuaded. First, an appeal to the BTA is not the statutorily…”

Phillip Edward Sifferman, V. Chelan Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “In approving the excise tax refund procedures in RCW 82.32.170 and .180 against a due process challenge, the supreme court in Peters v.”

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.