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

Wash. Rev. Code § 84.40.080 (2026)

Listing omitted property or improvements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An assessor shall enter on the assessment roll in any year any property shown to have been omitted from the assessment roll of any preceding year, at the value for the preceding year, or if not then valued, at such value as the assessor shall determine for the preceding year, and such value shall be stated separately from the value of any other year. Where improvements have not been valued and assessed as a part of the real estate upon which the same may be located, as evidenced by the assessment rolls, they may be separately valued and assessed as omitted property under this section. No such assessment shall be made in any case where a bona fide purchaser, encumbrancer, or contract buyer has acquired any interest in said property prior to the time such improvements are assessed. When such an omitted assessment is made, the taxes levied thereon may be paid within one year of the due date of the taxes for the year in which the assessment is made without penalty or interest. In the assessment of personal property, the assessor shall assess the omitted value not reported by the taxpayer as evidenced by an inspection of either the property or the books and records of said taxpayer by the assessor.
[ 1995 c 134 s 14. Prior: 1994 c 301 s 37; 1994 c 124 s 21; 1973 2nd ex.s. c 8 s 1; 1961 c 15 s 84.40.080; prior: 1951 1st ex.s. c 8 s 1; 1925 ex.s. c 130 s 59; 1897 c 71 s 48; RRS s 11142.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case: King Cnty. v. Washington State Bd. of Tax Appeals, 622 P.2d 898 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King Cnty. v. Washington State Bd. of Tax Appeals, 622 P.2d 898 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “The Assessor determined Whitney-Fidalgo had underreported the value of personal property accounts for the audited years and made "omitted value assessments" under RCW 84.40.080 to correct this underreported assessment value.”
Tradewell Stores, Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty., 418 P.2d 466 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 3× “In so doing, the assessor believed that he was imposing an “omitted improvement assessment” pursuant to RCW 84.40.080. The additional taxes totaling $6,050.”
Tacoma Goodwill Indus. Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. Cnty. of Pierce, 518 P.2d 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 8× “This appeal presents a single issue: Is property which has continuously been listed and valued on the assessor’s roll books but improperly granted exemption in prior years “omitted property” within the meaning of RCW 84.40.080? We answer in the negative.”
Star Iron & Steel Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 488 P.2d 776 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “The issue raised on the appeal by the assignments of error of Pierce County from this portion of the case is whether the assessor attempted to assess property omitted from the tax rolls for the years in question, as is permitted under RCW 84.40.080 or whether he was attempting…”
Lipsett Steel Prods., Inc. v. King Cnty., 409 P.2d 475 (Wash. 1965). “Hence, for the reasons indicated hereinbefore, our conclusion is that the property involved is personalty, and the “omitted” or “delayed” assessment of the personal property taxes by King County was proper under the provisions of RCW 84.40.080, reading as follows: Listing…”
Smith v. Spokane Cnty., 836 P.2d 854 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 9× “78 for property taxes on improvements retroactively assessed as omitted property under RCW 84.40.080. The Smiths paid the taxes under protest and filed suit for their recovery *480 pursuant to RCW 84.”
Star Iron & Steel Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 504 P.2d 770 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 6× “But whatever difference may be seen between omitted property and omitted value in that case has little validity, *683 I think, in the instant case, so markedly different are the circumstances.”
Ppf Amli 1260 Repub. Street, Llc, App V. John Wilson, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 11× “065 and should be treated as omitted property under RCW 84.40.080. The BOE agreed that “the omitted building constitutes omitted property” under RCW 84.”
Metzger v. Quick, 282 P.2d 812 (Wash. 1955). · cites it 2× “A supplemental assessment for the year 1950 was immediately made, as provided by RCW 84.40.080. The amount of the tax due was determined to be $79.”
P. B. Inv. Co. v. King Cnty., 469 P.2d 893 (Wash. 1970). · cites it 2× “King County argues that the omitted property section, RCW 84.40.080, provides authority for placing the property back on the tax roll.”
Legacy Partners Riverpark Apts Bldgs. A/b, Llc, App. v. King Cnty., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “16 Legacy also argues that the Assessor's correction of the assessments is inconsistent with the omit statute, RCW 84.40.080. The omit statute permits the Assessor to make a correction when improvements are omitted entirely from an assessment.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. King Cnty., 487 P.2d 221 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “For each year the property would have been taxed, except for the provisions of this amendatory act, all such properties so reconsigned or not shipped out of the state by December 31st shall be assessed and taxed as otherwise provided by law, including (but not limited to)…”
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.