Wash. Rev. Code » Title 84 · Chapter 84.68
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 84.68.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In all cases of the levy of taxes for public revenue which are deemed unlawful or excessive by the person, firm or corporation whose property is taxed, or from whom such tax is demanded or enforced, such person, firm or corporation may pay such tax or any part thereof deemed unlawful, under written protest setting forth all of the grounds upon which such tax is claimed to be unlawful or excessive; and thereupon the person, firm or corporation so paying, or their legal representatives or assigns, may bring an action in the superior court or in any federal court of competent jurisdiction against the state, county or municipality by whose officers the same was collected, to recover such tax, or any portion thereof, so paid under protest: PROVIDED, That RCW 84.68.010 through 84.68.070 shall not be deemed to enlarge the grounds upon which taxes may now be recovered: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That no claim need be presented to the state or county or municipality, or any of their respective officers, for the return of such protested tax as a condition precedent to the institution of such action.
[ 1994 c 124 s 40; 1961 c 15 s 84.68.020. Prior: 1937 c 11 s 1; 1931 c 62 s 2; 1927 c 280 s 7; 1925 c 18 s 7; RRS s 11315-2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases, 1970–2019 · leading case: Longview Fibre Co. v. Cowlitz Cnty., 777 P.2d 556 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Longview Fibre Co. v. Cowlitz Cnty., 777 P.2d 556 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 16× “Pursuant to the protest statute, RCW 84.68.020, Longview Fibre paid the second installment under protest.”
Longview Fibre Co. v. Cowlitz Cnty., 790 P.2d 149 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 5× “However, the County refused to refund more than half of the 1981 overpayment because Longview Fibre failed to protest the first installment pursuant to RCW 84.68.020. The parties entered into a stipulated partial judgment that awarded Longview Fibre the half of the overpayment…”
Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores, 122 Wash. App. 592 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Compare RCW 84.68.020 (requiring that property taxes be paid under protest to bring a claim later); Longview Fibre Co.”
Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores, 94 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Compare RCW 84.68.020 (requiring that property taxes be paid under protest to bring a claim later); Longview Fibre Co.”
Del Pettit v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 538 P.2d 501 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 6× “180 or RCW 84.68.020, 2 or where a formal hearing was elected.”
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Pierce Cnty., 529 P.2d 9 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 6× “180, and as a suit for refund of taxes paid to the defendant pursuant to RCW 84.68.020. The trial court awarded a judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for taxes unlawfully and illegally assessed, and both parties thereafter filed a notice of appeal.”
Advanced Silicon Materials, L.L.C. v. Grant Cnty., 124 P.3d 294 (Wash. 2005). “ASiMI filed suit against Grant County for a refund of property taxes paid under protest in 2003 pursuant to RCW 84.68.020, alleging that Grant County imposed unlawful and excessive taxes on ASiMI’s properties for the 2002 tax year.”
Advanced Silicon Materials v. Grant Cnty., 124 P.3d 294 (Wash. 2005). “ASiMI filed suit against Grant County for a refund of property taxes paid under protest in 2003 pursuant to RCW 84.68.020, alleging that Grant County imposed unlawful and excessive taxes on ASiMI's properties for the 2002 tax year.”
Lane v. Port of Seattle, 316 P.3d 1070 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “This appeal followed. ¶12 As a threshold issue, the Port asserts that the plaintiffs’ case is barred because it was brought as a taxpayer challenge to property taxes and the plaintiffs failed to pay their taxes under protest, which is a statutory precondition for such a suit.”
King Cnty. v. Washington State Bd. of Tax Appeals, 622 P.2d 898 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “140 . . . The Supreme Court has construed this statute to preclude judicial review from an informal hearing of the Board of Tax Appeals except through the two specified statutes, RCW 82.”
Sator v. Dep't of Revenue, 572 P.2d 1094 (Wash. 1977). “Additionally, taxpayers may seek relief under RCW 84.68.020 which provides a means whereby a refund may be sought for taxes "which are deemed unlawful or excessive by the person, firm or corporation whose property is taxed".”
Transamerica Title Ins. v. Hoppe, 611 P.2d 1361 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “RCW 84.68.020 provides, in part: In all cases of the levy of taxes for public revenue which are deemed unlawful or excessive by the person, firm or corporation whose property is taxed, .”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.