B&O tax Archives | INSIDE SALT

A second chance to get it right: Washington’s ESSB 5814 penalty relief program offers critical compliance window

If your business has been struggling to keep pace with Washington State’s sweeping expansion of retail sales tax under Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5814, you are not alone. And, more importantly, you may not be too late. The Washington Department of Revenue (DOR) announced a temporary penalty relief program specifically designed to help businesses that have not yet complied with their new tax obligations. For affected taxpayers, this program represents an opportunity to resolve outstanding liabilities without penalty exposure.

Background: ESSB 5814 and the expansion of taxable services

ESSB 5814 represents a significant expansion of Washington’s retail sales tax regime. The legislation expanded the statutory definition of “retail sale” to encompass several service transactions that were subject only to Washington’s business and occupation (B&O) tax under the “service and other” classification.

The categories of services newly subject to retail sales tax include:

Advertising services
Information technology consulting and technical support services
Custom software development and customization of prewritten software
Custom website development services
Investigation and security services, including monitoring and armored car services
Temporary staffing services
Certain live presentations and event-related services

As a result of the legislative change, providers of these services must now:

Collect and remit retail sales tax on taxable transactions.
Report the receipts under the retailing B&O tax classification rather than the service and other classification that historically applied. This change generally will help compliant taxpayers as the retailing B&O tax rate (0.471%) is lower than the services and other B&O tax rate (between 1.5% and 1.75%).

The law took effect October 1, 2025, but transitional rules applied to certain preexisting contracts through March 31, 2026. Given the quick implementation of ESSB 5814, the breadth of the change, and the number of industries affected, many taxpayers faced uncertainty regarding compliance. To address these transition challenges, the DOR has announced a temporary penalty relief program for taxpayers that failed to collect or remit the newly applicable taxes during the early stages of implementation. The program is also intended to encourage voluntary compliance with the new law.

Overview of the penalty relief program

To be eligible for relief, businesses must meet the following criteria:

Covered liabilities: The program covers uncollected retail sales tax and unpaid use tax for the new categories of taxable services created by ESSB 5814.
Covered reporting periods: Eligible reporting periods run from October 1, 2025, through December 31, 2026. For businesses with preexisting contracts that qualified for temporary sales tax relief, penalty relief begins when the contract no longer qualifies for such relief or on April 1, 2026 (whichever occurs first). Relief for businesses with preexisting contracts also ends on December 31, 2026.
Application process: Applications must be submitted via the DOR’s Voluntary Disclosure Application system. Once the DOR determines that a taxpayer qualifies, it will issue a Penalty Relief Agreement that the taxpayer must sign and return within 30 days. After execution, the DOR will work with the taxpayer to determine the appropriate tax liability and issue a formal assessment. (Note that Washington law requires [...]

Continue Reading

Washington Department of Revenue Announces LendingTree Decision Does Not Prevent Sourcing of Services to Customer’s Customer Location

The Washington State Department of Revenue (the “Department”) recently announced its interpretation of the Washington Court of Appeals’ March 30, 2020, adverse ruling in LendingTree, LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue, no. 80637-8-I (Wash. App. Ct. Mar. 30, 2020). See here for our prior analysis of the LendingTree opinion. In its interpretation, the Department takes the view that the LendingTree opinion “does not represent a new legal framework,” but rather that the court simply followed the applicable business and occupation tax apportionment rules in sourcing service receipts to the customer’s location and rejecting the Department’s methodology sourcing to the customers’ customers’ location.

The Department’s response suggests that it intends to narrowly apply LendingTree‘s holding. The Department admits that the court agreed with LendingTree in designating the service at issue to be LendingTree’s referral services (lenders pay a fee to receive referrals of potential borrowers) and rejected the Department’s characterization of the service as marketing and outreach to potential borrowers. Under this characterization, the Department observes, in accordance with a Washington regulation sourcing services to where the customer’s related business activity occurs, the referral services are sourced to the lender’s location, where lenders evaluate the referrals received by LendingTree.

The response goes on to emphasize, however, that there are circumstances where the Department will continue to source service receipts to a customer’s customers’ location. The Department announced that one such circumstance would be for taxpayers who have revenues from the sale of marketing or advertising services to a customer engaged in the business of selling.

Taxpayers should be forewarned that despite the LendingTree ruling, they may still have to battle Department efforts to source service receipts based on the location of their customers’ customers (particularly if they are engaged in the sale of marketing or advertising services), despite a Washington statute requiring service receipts to be sourced to the customer and federal constitutional principles requiring that an apportionment method reflect a taxpayer’s in-state activity. (See: e.g., Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, 514 U.S. 175 (1995); Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 (1983).) Unfortunately, it appears that “look through” sourcing disputes between taxpayers and the Department will continue.