The high court’s decision is the result of a series of back-and-forth clashes between the plaintiffs and the attorney general
Brett Davis
The Center Square Washington
The Washington Supreme Court on Wednesday morning granted Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s request to allow the state Department of Revenue to collect the capital gains income tax before a final ruling on the tax’s constitutionality next year.
“The Court voted unanimously in favor of the following result: Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED: That the motion for a stay of the lower court’s order pending review is granted,” the motion reads. “The lower court order is stayed pending this Court’s final decision in this matter. DATED at Olympia, Washington this 30th day of November, 2022.”
The high court’s decision is the result of a series of back-and-forth clashes between the plaintiffs and the attorney general. On Nov. 21, Ferguson fired back at plaintiffs’ Nov. 16 motion objecting to his office’s request to allow collection of a new capital gains income tax that has been ruled unconstitutional.
The attorney general had filed a motion on Nov. 3 asking the state Supreme Court to allow the DOR to collect the tax before a final ruling on the case.
On July 13, the state Supreme Court agreed to take direct review of the case at Ferguson’s request, bypassing the Court of Appeals, following Douglas County Superior Court Judge Brian Huber’s March 1 ruling the tax adopted last year under Senate Bill 5096 is an unconstitutional graduated income tax.
Huber ruled that the capital gains income tax “is declared unconstitutional and invalid, and therefore, is void and inoperable as a matter of law.”
Aimed at Washington’s wealthiest residents, the new tax adds a 7% tax on capital gains above $250,000 a year, such as profits from stocks or business sales. Exceptions include the sale of real estate, livestock, and small family-owned businesses.
Citizen Action Defense Fund Executive Director Jackson Maynard was not happy about the substance of the court’s Wednesday morning decision, but did find a silver lining.
“While we are disappointed in the Court’s ruling today, the fact that the State was forced to follow proper procedure demonstrates that no one – even a state agency – is above the law,” he said in a statement. “CADF was clearly right in insisting that the Department needed to get a motion to stay the trial court ruling and couldn’t just ignore it.
On October 5, the local government watchdog nonprofit sent the DOR a letter demanding the agency stop its rulemaking activities related to implementing the tax, maintaining that because the state did not ask to stay the lower court ruling, the statute was void.
“The Department in the Motion to Stay dropped any pretense that its proposed rules were just ‘guidance’ – the State’s filings demonstrate that it planned to collect the tax all along,” Maynard continued. “We are pleased that the parties cited our letters and those of legislators who were also concerned about the Department’s actions as part of the record in this matter. We look forward to the Court’s continued review of the merits of this case and this unconstitutional tax in the coming months.”
Although the state did eventually file a motion to stay the trial court ruling, the DOR responded to the letter by claiming that its proposed rules were guidance and would not be binding unless the state Supreme Court upheld the tax.
The state Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case, Chris Quinn, et al. vs. State of Washington, on Jan. 26, 2023.
This report was first published by The Center Square Washington.
Also read:
- Leslie Lewallen stays and fights for Washington as director of Future 42 Clark County
Former Camas City Councilor Leslie Lewallen is leading the Clark County chapter of Future 42, a new organization focused on policy advocacy, accountability, and engaging persuadable voters at the local and state level. - Opinion: ‘Seeking might over right destroys representative government’
Retired judge Dave Larson argues that prioritizing political power over constitutional principles has undermined representative government and calls for renewed civic responsibility. - Letter: ‘Immigration’ resolution scheduled for this Wednesday at Clark County Council Meeting
Rob Anderson urges residents to closely watch an upcoming Clark County Council meeting where an immigration-related resolution and proposed rule changes are expected to be discussed. - Opinion: The 1700-square-foot solution to Washington’s housing crisis
An opinion column arguing that Washington’s energy code has driven up housing costs and outlining how HB 2486 aims to limit those impacts for smaller, more affordable homes. - Rep. John Ley’s new bill calls for an independent audit of Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement Project
Rep. John Ley introduced legislation requiring an independent audit of the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement Project to review costs, management, and oversight. - Letter: Public school vision
Clark County resident Larry Roe urges a deeper community discussion about public school priorities, levy funding, and the long-term affordability of education for local families. - County Charter Review Commission sets meeting schedule, selects officers
The Clark County Charter Review Commission set a weekly meeting schedule beginning Feb. 4 and selected officers as it begins its review of the county charter.
The Court should have provided more analysis than simply an order (perhaps they provided one separate from the order–if they did shame on the author for not providing a link). The lack of any discussion into its thinking and reasoning creates a lack of transparency that weakens the legitimacy of the institution. It would seem to me that the Court should have erred on the side of citizens over the government’s interest in collecting the tax. A detailed explanation of the rational may have changed my mind–unfortunately there is none and I am left with the assumption that the Court ruled that way because they wanted to do and not because reason and legal principle’s justified it.