Public engagement and comment will be critical as the department rolls out and further implements the Washington State Capital Gains Excise Tax on Income
Rep. Chris Corry
Washington Policy Center
The Washington State Department of Revenue released its preliminary rule draft for a new section of the Excise Tax WACs for the upcoming public hearing on July 12th, 2023 at 10:00 am.
The proposed WAC-20-301 provides definitions, deductions, exemptions, and allocation of gains and losses for those filing with the state.
An initial review with the Tax Foundation found that most of the rules and definitions align with other state rules for capital gains income taxes, not excise taxes. Washington State’s capital gains tax is written as an excise tax but definitions and rules seem to treat it as an income tax.
The definitions around domicile and residency are of concern as well as how the state is capturing an “excise tax” on transactions that happen outside the state. The new WACs provide extensive examples of taxable scenarios. The draft does specifically ask for “Feedback requested concerning whether the term “federal net long-term capital gain” contemplates further adjustment under statute and existing case law.” (page 5 of draft rules) Of additional note is the exclusion of losses carried forward or backward for tax filing purposes.
Public engagement and comment will be critical as the department rolls out and further implements the Washington State Capital Gains Excise Tax on Income. You can find the pre proposal statement of inquiry here. Emails on rulemaking can be sent here. The meeting link can be accessed here.
Rep. Chris Corry is the director of the Center for Government Reform at the Washington Policy Center. He is also a member of the Washington State House of Representatives.
Also read:
- Opinion: The income tax proposal has arrived
Ryan Frost of the Washington Policy Center argues that a proposed Washington income tax creates a new revenue stream rather than delivering tax reform or relief. - Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - POLL: If a sub-district is created, what area should it include?
Clark County residents are asked where a potential C-TRAN sub-district should be drawn if voters are asked to fund light rail operations and maintenance costs. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design.
