Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.44.120 (2026)

Claims for refunds

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(1) Refunds of locally imposed motor vehicle excise taxes must be handled in the same manner and under the same terms and conditions as provided in RCW 46.68.010.

(2) A claim for a refund may be made by a person who:

(a) Is not seeking a full refund; and

(b) Believes the amount of the locally imposed motor vehicle excise tax paid was incorrect or too much.

(3) When a claim for a refund is made as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the department shall:

(a) Determine the amount of the locally imposed motor vehicle excise tax that had been greater than the amount actually due, if any; and

(b) Certify to the state treasurer the amount of the partial refund due.

(4) Before a local government subject to this chapter may impose a motor vehicle excise tax, the local government shall contract with the department for reimbursement for any refunds paid to a person by the treasurer.

[ 2010 c 161 s 915; 2006 c 318 s 8; 2003 c 53 s 403; 1993 c 307 s 3; 1990 c 42 s 307; 1989 c 68 s 2; 1983 c 26 s 3; 1979 c 120 s 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 278 s 95; 1974 ex.s. c 54 s 4; 1967 c 121 s 2; 1963 c 199 s 5; 1961 c 15 s 82.44.120. Prior: 1949 c 196 s 18; 1945 c 152 s 3; 1943 c 144 s 11; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 6312-125.]

Notes:

Effective date—Intent—Legislation to reconcile chapter 161, Laws of 2010 and other amendments made during the 2010 legislative session—2010 c 161: See notes following RCW 46.04.013.

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.

Purpose—Effective dates—Application—Implementation—1990 c 42: See notes following RCW 46.68.090.

Construction—Severability—1975 1st ex.s. c 278: See notes following RCW 11.08.160.

Severability—Effective dates—1974 ex.s. c 54: See notes following RCW 82.48.080.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2010–2010 · leading case: CLARK Cnty. PUD v. Dept. of Revenue, 222 P.3d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

CLARK Cnty. PUD v. Dept. of Revenue, 222 P.3d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “In that case, the Attorney General's Office (AGO) addressed whether a person was entitled to a refund of the motor vehicle excise tax when the applicable statute, RCW 82.44.120, did not authorize a refund of the tax under the facts of the case.”

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.