Arborwood Idaho v Kennewick :: 151 Wn2d 359
Category: Taxation and Fees
This case involves the legality of Excise Taxes (fees) vs. Utility Taxes in regard to ambulance services provided by a city or town. The question arises whether ambulance service should be operated as a public utility, imposing an excise tax on each household, business and industry or be billed directly as a fee to the persons using the service.
Arborwood Idaho purchased an apartment complex consisting of 33 buildings containing a total of 188 apartment unit in Kennewick Washington in 1992. There are four separate meters for water and sewer which are billed by the city of Kennewick through four separate accounts. Also the city billed and collected from Arborwood an ambulance charge of $2.60 per month for each occupied unit. Arborwood protested the ambulance charge, asserting that the ambulance charge must be imposed directly on the tenants using the service rather than on the owner of the building. Arborwood contends that Kennewick exceeded its statutory authority to charge a fee to owners of a building that does not use the service.
After Arborwood appealed the fee, Kennewick argues that it has broad authority to impose an excise tax not only on those receiving the service but also for the availability of the ambulance service. Kennewick has since amended the ordinance to change the “excise tax” to a “utility charge”. It now operates as a public utility, allowing that whose name appears on the utility account must pay the ambulance charge based on occupancy.
If the ambulance charge is used for the maintenance, operation and capital needs of the emergency medical and ambulance service and the primary purpose is to raise revenue used for the desired public benefit, the charges are a tax. If the primary purpose is to provide a targeted service or alleviate a burden to which they contribute - that would suggest that the charge is an incidental tool of regulation constituting a fee.
The trial court and the appeals court ruled in favor of Kennewick, asserting that the ambulance charge is a valid regulatory fee.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, contending that the ambulance charge is not a valid excise tax or a valid fee and exceeds the taxing authority granted to cities and towns.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Bridge, Bobbe | |
| pass | Chambers, Tom | |
| pass | Fairhurst, Mary E | |
| pass | Ireland, Faith | |
| pass | Johnson, Charles | |
| pass | Jonson, Daryl D | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | Owens, Susan | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Severson, William C | |
| pass | Tomich-Salinas, Terri L | |
| fail | Comfort, Cameron G | |
| fail | Gregoire, Christine | |
| fail | Hart, Maureen A | |
| fail | Zimmerman, Charles D | |
| fail | Ziobro, John S |