Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 84.69.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
On the order of the county treasurer, ad valorem taxes paid before or after delinquency must be refunded if they were:
(1) Paid more than once;
(2) Paid as a result of manifest error in description;
(3) Paid as a result of a clerical error in extending the tax rolls;
(4) Paid as a result of other clerical errors in listing property;
(5) Paid with respect to improvements which did not exist on assessment date;
(6) Paid under levies or statutes adjudicated to be illegal or unconstitutional;
(7) Paid as a result of mistake, inadvertence, or lack of knowledge by any person exempted from paying real property taxes or a portion thereof pursuant to RCW 84.36.381 through 84.36.389, as now or hereafter amended;
(8) Paid as a result of mistake, inadvertence, or lack of knowledge by either a public official or employee or by any person with respect to real property in which the person paying the same has no legal interest;
(9) Paid on the basis of an assessed valuation which was appealed to the county board of equalization and ordered reduced by the board;
(10) Paid on the basis of an assessed valuation which was appealed to the state board of tax appeals and ordered reduced by the board: PROVIDED, That the amount refunded under subsections (9) and (10) of this section shall only be for the difference between the tax paid on the basis of the appealed valuation and the tax payable on the valuation adjusted in accordance with the board's order;
(11) Paid as a state property tax levied upon property, the assessed value of which has been established by the state board of tax appeals for the year of such levy: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the amount refunded shall only be for the difference between the state property tax paid and the amount of state property tax which would, when added to all other property taxes within the one percent limitation of Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution equal one percent of the assessed value established by the board;
(12) Paid on the basis of an assessed valuation which was adjudicated to be unlawful or excessive: PROVIDED, That the amount refunded shall be for the difference between the amount of tax which was paid on the basis of the valuation adjudged unlawful or excessive and the amount of tax payable on the basis of the assessed valuation determined as a result of the proceeding;
(13) Paid on property acquired under RCW 84.60.050, and canceled under RCW 84.60.050(2);
(14) Paid on the basis of an assessed valuation that was reduced under RCW 84.48.065;
(15) Paid on the basis of an assessed valuation that was reduced under RCW 84.40.039; or
(16) Abated under RCW 84.70.010.
No refunds under the provisions of this section shall be made because of any error in determining the valuation of property, except as authorized in subsections (9), (10), (11), and (12) of this section nor may any refunds be made if a bona fide purchaser has acquired rights that would preclude the assessment and collection of the refunded tax from the property that should properly have been charged with the tax. Any refunds made on delinquent taxes must include the proportionate amount of interest and penalties paid. However, no refunds as a result of an incorrect payment authorized under subsection (8) of this section made by a third party payee shall be granted. The county treasurer may deduct from moneys collected for the benefit of the state's levies, refunds of the state's levies including interest on the levies as provided by this section and chapter 84.68 RCW.
The county treasurer of each county must make all refunds determined to be authorized by this section, and by the first Monday in February of each year, report to the county legislative authority a list of all refunds made under this section during the previous year. The list is to include the name of the person receiving the refund, the amount of the refund, and the reason for the refund.
[ 2017 3rd sp.s. c 13 s 310; 2005 c 502 s 9; 2002 c 168 s 11; 1999 sp.s. c 8 s 2. Prior: 1998 c 306 s 2; 1997 c 393 s 18; 1996 c 296 s 2; 1994 c 301 s 55; 1991 c 245 s 31; 1989 c 378 s 17; 1981 c 228 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 291 s 21; 1974 ex.s. c 122 s 2; 1972 ex.s. c 126 s 2; 1971 ex.s. c 288 s 14; 1969 ex.s. c 224 s 1; 1961 c 15 s 84.69.020; prior: 1957 c 120 s 2.]

Notes:

ApplicationTax preference performance statement and expiration2017 3rd sp.s. c 13 ss 301-314: See notes following RCW 84.52.065.
Intent2017 3rd sp.s. c 13: See note following RCW 28A.150.410.
Collective bargaining agreements not impaired2017 3rd sp.s. c 13: See note following RCW 41.56.139.
Effective date2005 c 502: See note following RCW 1.12.070.
SeverabilityEffective date1999 sp.s. c 8: See notes following RCW 84.70.010.
Applicability1981 c 228: "Section 1(12) of the [this] amendatory act applies to only those taxes which first become due and payable subsequent to January 1, 1981: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this section shall not apply to any taxes which were paid under protest and which were timely paid." [ 1981 c 228 s 4.]
Effective datesSeverability1975 1st ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 82.04.050.
Purpose1974 ex.s. c 122: "The legislature recognizes that the operation of the provisions of RCW 84.52.065 and 84.48.080, providing for adjustments in the county-determined assessed value of property for purposes of the state property tax for schools, may, with respect to certain properties, result in a total regular property tax payment in excess of the one percent limitation provided for in Article 7, section 2 (Amendment 59) of the state Constitution. The primary purpose of this 1974 amendatory act is to provide a procedure for administrative relief in such cases, such relief to be in addition to the presently existing procedure for judicial relief through a refund action provided for in RCW 84.68.020." [ 1974 ex.s. c 122 s 1.]
SeverabilitySavings1971 ex.s. c 288: See notes following RCW 84.40.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2016 · leading case: Coluccio v. King Cnty., 917 P.2d 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
Coluccio v. King Cnty., 917 P.2d 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9× “In this case we are asked to determine whether the prior adjudication requirement of RCW 84.69.020 is satisfied when there has not been any determination that the property assessment at issue is excessive or unlawful but there has been such an adjudication covering a subsequent…”
Coluccio v. King Cnty., 917 P.2d 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9× “In this case we are asked to determine whether the prior adjudication requirement of RCW 84.69.020 is satisfied when there has not been any determination that the property assessment at issue is excessive or unlawful but there has been such an adjudication covering a subsequent…”
United Airlines, Inc., App. v. Wa State Dept Of Revenue, Resps., 376 P.3d 471 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “United is proceeding under the administrative refund statute, RCW 84.69.020. ¶13 A request for an administrative refund is directed to the county treasurer rather than to a court.”
Crystal Chalets Ass'n v. Pierce Cnty., 966 P.2d 424 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Here, they do not have a statutory grounds for a refund under RCW 84.69.020 unless the assessed valuation is first adjudicated to be unlawful or excessive.”
Bankers Trust Co. v. Snohomish Cnty., 989 P.2d 97 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “RCW 84.69.020(8) requires the County to refund taxes *100 that were paid as a result of mistake by a person having no legal interest in the property unless a bona fide purchaser has acquired rights that would preclude the assessment and collection of the refunded tax.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.69.020(1) — 1 case
United Airlines, Inc., App. v. Wa State Dept Of Revenue, Resps., 376 P.3d 471 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “United is proceeding under the administrative refund statute, RCW 84.69.020. ¶13 A request for an administrative refund is directed to the county treasurer rather than to a court.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.69.020(12) — 3 cases
Coluccio v. King Cnty., 917 P.2d 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “In this case we are asked to determine whether the prior adjudication requirement of RCW 84.69.020 is satisfied when there has not been any determination that the property assessment at issue is excessive or unlawful but there has been such an adjudication covering a subsequent…”
Coluccio v. King Cnty., 917 P.2d 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “In this case we are asked to determine whether the prior adjudication requirement of RCW 84.69.020 is satisfied when there has not been any determination that the property assessment at issue is excessive or unlawful but there has been such an adjudication covering a subsequent…”
Crystal Chalets Ass'n v. Pierce Cnty., 966 P.2d 424 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Here, they do not have a statutory grounds for a refund under RCW 84.69.020 unless the assessed valuation is first adjudicated to be unlawful or excessive.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.69.020(2) — 1 case
United Airlines, Inc., App. v. Wa State Dept Of Revenue, Resps., 376 P.3d 471 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “United is proceeding under the administrative refund statute, RCW 84.69.020. ¶13 A request for an administrative refund is directed to the county treasurer rather than to a court.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.69.020(8) — 1 case
Bankers Trust Co. v. Snohomish Cnty., 989 P.2d 97 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 84.69.020(8) requires the County to refund taxes *100 that were paid as a result of mistake by a person having no legal interest in the property unless a bona fide purchaser has acquired rights that would preclude the assessment and collection of the refunded tax.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.69.020(9) — 2 cases
Coluccio v. King Cnty., 917 P.2d 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “In this case we are asked to determine whether the prior adjudication requirement of RCW 84.69.020 is satisfied when there has not been any determination that the property assessment at issue is excessive or unlawful but there has been such an adjudication covering a subsequent…”
Coluccio v. King Cnty., 917 P.2d 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “In this case we are asked to determine whether the prior adjudication requirement of RCW 84.69.020 is satisfied when there has not been any determination that the property assessment at issue is excessive or unlawful but there has been such an adjudication covering a subsequent…”
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.