Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-2021 - HEX Email Clarirfication - TracFone v. Renton_ Tax administration rules adopted under RMC 5-26-20 (2)CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:Phil Olbrechts To:Kari L. Sand Cc:Cynthia Moya; Edwards, Scott M.; Degginger, Grant Subject:Re: TracFone v. Renton: Tax administration rules adopted under RMC 5-26-20 Date:Tuesday, June 01, 2021 9:48:44 PM A point of clarification to my formal opinion request -- Ordinance No. 5756, which adopted Chapter 5-26 RMC, didn't repeal RMC 5-11-2, which at the time imposed a 12% yearly late payment interest rate for utility taxes only. The utility tax12% yearly interest rate was adopted by Ordinance No. 5367. which as best as I can tell wasn't repealed until replaced by a new 5- 11-2 by Ordinance No. 5944 in November, 2019. On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:42 PM Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote: Ms. Sand, Has the City adopted administrative tax rules under RMC 5-26-20 or adopted any formal administrative interpretations of the City's tax regulations? I was not able to find any such documents on-line and can take judicial notice of them for writing my decision. If the tax department does make administrative interpretations, I'm looking for anything that would clarify how to resolve the late payment interest conflict between RMC 5-11-2 (which imposed 12% yearly late payment interest for utility tax until November, 2019 when it was repealed by Ordinance 5944) and RMC 5-26-11, which as presented at the hearing imposed a much lower late payment interest rate for most if not all city taxes, includig utility taxes, starting in 2016. Tracfone is of course also invited to identify any formal administrative interpretations on the issue as well. On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 5:31 PM Kari L. Sand <ksand@omwlaw.com> wrote: Greetings, Examiner Olbrechts and everyone: Following today’s hearing, I would be remiss if I did not point out that if the Examiner decides that interest must be computed consistent with RCW 82.32.050, as TracFone argued, then the penalty must also be computed consistent with RCW 82.32.090(1) and (2) and would increase from 25% (under the former RMC 5-11-2(A)) to 34% (29% + 5%). My apologies for not pointing this out before today’s proceedings ended. To avoid any surprises later, in the event further corrections are warranted, it seemed important to also note the effect of the RCW on the computation of the penalty amount. Sincerely, Kari L. Sand | Attorney Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C. 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500 Seattle, WA 98164 Direct: 206.447.2250 | Fax: 206.447.0215 ksand@omwlaw.com | www.omwlaw.com Take a look at Ogden Murphy Wallace’s new website! CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION - This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender. It may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the contents is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original transmission and all copies.