Opinion ID: 2570667
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lane Has Standing To Challenge Seattle's Tax on SPU

Text: ¶ 20 Seattle challenged Lane's standing to challenge the tax at trial but has dropped the argument here. However, standing is a matter of our jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, we cannot hear a case, even if every party concedes standing. High Tide Seafoods v. State, 106 Wash.2d 695, 702, 725 P.2d 411 (1986). [1] ¶ 21 To have standing, a party must be in a law's zone of interest and must suffer some harm. Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 160 Wash.2d 173, 186, 157 P.3d 847 (2007). Lane obviously has suffered harm; if his argument is right, he must pay more in taxes than is legally allowed. His zone of interest argument, though, is on shakier ground because he does not directly pay the tax. After all, he is complaining about Seattle's tax on the water utility SPU. If Lane has standing at all, it is only as a taxpayer interested in making his government follow the law. ¶ 22 Lane points us to RCW 80.04.440, which allows any person harmed by a public utility's unlawful acts to bring suit. Even though Lane's challenge is to Seattle's tax on SPU and not to SPU's illegal acts, he rests on RCW 7.24.020, allowing for declaratory judgments of laws directly affecting a party. ¶ 23 The standing issue here was analyzed in our decision in Nelson. There, we held that a car buyer has standing to challenge a tax applied directly to his dealer and seller because the buyer ultimately paid the tax. Nelson, 160 Wash.2d at 186, 157 P.3d 847. In the same way, the tax on SPU is passed on to Lane directly, and so he is within the interest zone of RCW 80.04.440. He has standing to challenge the tax and rate increase.