Wash. Rev. Code » Title 84 · Chapter 84.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 84.40.0301 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Upon review by any court, or appellate body, of a determination of the valuation of property for purposes of taxation, it shall be presumed that the determination of the public official charged with the duty of establishing such value is correct but this presumption shall not be a defense against any correction indicated by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.
[ 1994 c 301 s 35; 1971 ex.s. c 288 s 2.]

Notes:

Savings—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 288: See notes following RCW 84.40.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: Folsom v. Cnty. of Spokane, 725 P.2d 987 (Wash. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Folsom v. Cnty. of Spokane, 725 P.2d 987 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 3× “See RCW 84.40.0301. Nevertheless, we believe that, in valuing property subject to a long-term lease, contract rent should be presumed the proper base figure for valuation in the absence of clear, convincing evidence that market rent exceeds contract rent.”
Nw. Pipeline Corp. v. Adams Cnty., 131 P.3d 958 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “That is, assuming growth effectively taxes assets that by definition will be created in the future (future growth).”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Easter, 894 P.2d 1290 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 2× “Issues Weyerhaeuser’s appeal raises three issues: (1) what is the scope of the presumption of correctness given under RCW 84.40.0301 to an assessor’s original appraisal? (2) under what conditions are the expenses of pollution control equipment deductible from assessed value? and…”
Tiger Oil Corp. v. Yakima Cnty., 158 Wash. App. 553 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The presumption is codified at RCW 84.40.0301: Upon review by any court, or appellate body, of a determination of the valuation of property for purposes of taxation, it shall be presumed that the determination of the public official charged with the duty of establishing such…”
Washington Beef, Inc. v. Cnty. of Yakima, 177 P.3d 162 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Here, Washington Beef argues that the court should have placed more weight on the values Washington Beef Inc. and AgriBeef placed on the plant and facilities when AgriBeef bought the assets.”
Washington Beef, Inc. v. Yakima Cnty., 143 Wash. App. 165 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Here, Washington Beef argues that the court should have placed more weight on the values Washington Beef Inc. and AgriBeef placed on the plant and facilities when AgriBeef bought the assets.”
Xerox Corp. v. King Cnty., 617 P.2d 412 (Wash. 1980). “The problem is complicated by the applicable statute, RCW 84.40.0301(1), enacted in 1971. It provides: *290 (1) Upon review by any court, or appellate body, of a determination of the valuation of property for purposes of taxation, it shall be presumed that the determination of…”
Inter Island Tel. Co. v. San Juan Cnty., 883 P.2d 1380 (Wash. 1994). “RCW 84.40.0301(1) provides: Upon review by any court, or appellate body, of a determination of the valuation of property for purposes of taxation, it shall be presumed that the determination of the public official charged with the duty of establishing such value is correct but…”
Welch Foods, Inc. v. Benton Cnty., 148 P.3d 1092 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 84.40.0301. Here, the County admitted Mr.”
Welch Foods, Inc. v. Benton Cnty., 136 Wash. App. 314 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 84.40.0301. Here, the County admitted Mr.”
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. Clark Cnty., 658 P.2d 669 (Wash. 1983). “12.300. II Even when statutory requirements are complied with, however, a valuation for purposes of taxation may be judicially reviewed for correctness.”
King Cnty. v. Dep't of Revenue, 649 P.2d 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “(1) Upon review by any court, or appellate body, of a determination of the valuation of property for purposes of taxation, it shall be presumed that the determination of the public official charged with the duty of establishing such value is correct but this presumption shall…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.40.0301(1) — 4 cases
Xerox Corp. v. King Cnty., 617 P.2d 412 (Wash. 1980). “The problem is complicated by the applicable statute, RCW 84.40.0301(1), enacted in 1971. It provides: *290 (1) Upon review by any court, or appellate body, of a determination of the valuation of property for purposes of taxation, it shall be presumed that the determination of…”
Inter Island Tel. Co. v. San Juan Cnty., 883 P.2d 1380 (Wash. 1994). “RCW 84.40.0301(1) provides: Upon review by any court, or appellate body, of a determination of the valuation of property for purposes of taxation, it shall be presumed that the determination of the public official charged with the duty of establishing such value is correct but…”
King Cnty. v. Dep't of Revenue, 649 P.2d 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “(1) Upon review by any court, or appellate body, of a determination of the valuation of property for purposes of taxation, it shall be presumed that the determination of the public official charged with the duty of establishing such value is correct but this presumption shall…”
Trans West Co. v. Klickitat Cnty., 591 P.2d 469 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).
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.