Other Languages(1) Under RCW 84.41.040, it is necessary that, prior to changing the "true and fair value" of real property for purposes of taxation, a county assessor make a physical inspection of the subject property. (2) There is no requirement in the state constitution with respect to the physical inspection of taxable real property prior to reevaluation for tax purposes.
The lien for personal property taxes against the property actually assessed for the tax is superior to a pre‑existing [[preexisting]] chattel mortgage on the same property and the property may be followed and the taxes collected after foreclosure of the mortgage.
A voluntary appearance by a taxpayer before a county board of equalization, when made pursuant to RCW 84.48.010 for the sole purpose of seeking a reduction in the assessed valuation of a certain parcel of real property, does not give the board jurisdiction to increase the valuation of the subject property without advance notice.
RCW 84.34.065 sets forth a special method of valuation for property tax purposes which is applicable to farm and agricultural land only, and not the valuation of perennial plants located thereon; therefore, for purposes of ad valorem taxation, farm and agricultural land and taxable perennial plants located thereon should be listed and valued separately rather than being listed and valued as a unit.
All reasonably necessary costs of foreclosure, distraint and sale of property for delinquent taxes that can be traced by a reliable accounting method to the particular taxpayer and property involved may be (1) charged against the revolving fund created by RCW 82.56.020 and (2) recovered as costs of foreclosure or costs of distraint against the taxpayer or other party against whom that statute authorizes the charging of "costs."
The real property tax exemption provided for by § 2, chapter 168, Laws of 1965, Ex. Sess., with regard to certain retired persons, is applicable against taxes levied by the city of Waitsburg under authority of its territorial charter.
1. When two statutes passed by the Legislature deal with the same subject in different ways, the court will try to avoid any conflict by harmonizing the statutes, giving effect and meaning to both. If the statutes cannot be harmonized, the court usually applies the statute enacted later on the theory that it repeals the earlier statute. 2. Initiatives 601 and 602 deal with state revenue collections and expenditures in different ways. Certain provisions of these two initiatives cannot be harmonized, giving effect and meaning to both. 3. The usual rule of statutory construction that a later statute controls a conflicting statute enacted earlier does not apply in the case of two initiatives enacted simultaneously. If Initiatives 601 and 602 pass and the Legislature does not act to resolve any conflict between them, the courts will have to develop a new rule to choose between conflicting provisions of the two initiatives.
(1) The fact that motor vehicle fuel is sold to Makah Indians for use at their Neah Bay reservation does not prevent the application of the motor vehicle fuel tax (chapter 82.36 RCW). (2) When motor vehicle fuel is used for marine use, the motor vehicle fuel tax is either inapplicable or refundable depending upon the mode of delivery to the vessel in which the fuel is used and the person making the delivery.
(1) The legislative authority of a county is not first required to convey tax title land to itself in its proprietary capacity under RCW 36.35.030 before exchanging such property for other land under RCW 36.35.050. (2) Subsequent tax revenues derived from tax title property which was conveyed to private ownership under RCW 36.35.050 are to be distributed to the taxing districts in which the land is situated. (3) A county is not required by RCW 36.35.030 to operate a sanitary land fill on former tax title land at a profit.
(1) Where, on real property leased by it from a federally-recognized Indian tribe, a public port district has constructed and is operating a small boat moorage facility for the use of which it has established a rental fee schedule which is comparable to the fair market rental for comparable Pacific Coast moorages, the moorage rental fees paid by lessee users of the boat moorage are generally subject to the leasehold excise tax notwithstanding the exemption contained in RCW 82.29A.130(7), in all instances involving moorage leases for terms of 30 or more consecutive days.
(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the leasehold excise tax is not payable in the case of Indian tribally-owned vessels using the aforesaid moorage facility.