Court Opinion

ID: 9548169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:58:42.91941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:33.954841
License: Public Domain

Ott, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) — In King Cy. Water Dist. No. 68 v. Tax Comm’n, 58 Wn.2d 282, 362 P.2d 244 (1961), this court held that, when a prospective water user repays a city for the cost of construction of a water main to the prospective user’s premises, such payments are not subject to the state’s public utility tax for the reason “that money received as reimbursement for the cost of constructing, installing, and inspecting facilities for the purpose of operating a water distribution system” does not come within the purview of the term “gross operating revenue.” (Italics mine.) This decision is predicated upon the well established and sound business principle that no income results from return of capital. The rule announced in the cited case was reaffirmed as the law of this state in Seattle v. State, 59 Wn.2d 150, 367 P.2d 123 (1961).
It was stipulated by all parties to this appeal that, in the instant case, “These monies [in aid of construction] are in the same category as those involved in the case *597of King County Water District No. 68 v. The State of Washington.”
The majority concede the law to be that money received as “reimbursement for the cost of constructing” is not “gross operating revenue” under the Public Utility Act, but hold that “revenues to the utility resulting from assessments against the property owners for the cost of extending water mains to their property . . . are clearly a part of the gross income of the business,” and are subject to tax under the business and occupation tax. (Italics mine.)
The legislature, in the Business and Occupation Tax Act, has defined the term “gross income of the business” as follows:
“Gross income of the business” means the value proceeding or accruing by reason of the transaction of the business engaged in and includes gross proceeds of sales, compensation for the rendition of services, gains realized from trading in stocks . . . and other emoluments . . . . (Italics mine.) RCW 82.04.080.
I find nothing in this definition of “gross income of the business” which indicates a legislative intent that the reimbursement to a municipality of its cost for constructing water system extension lines is to be considered as income for tax purposes. Return of principal has never heretofore been regarded as income for tax purposes.
The legislative definition of “gross income of the business” is plain and unambiguous. In the instant case, to interpret it to include an excise tax on the return of capital is to read into the statute words which are not there, and to overrule by inference the well established law announced in King Cy. Water Dist. No. 68 v. Tax Comm’n, supra, and reaffirmed in Seattle v. State, supra.
Finally, when the water user has fully reimbursed the city of Kennewick for the cost of the extension of its water mains to his premises, this physical extension of the city’s water system does not represent a taxable gain or profit, within the purview of the questioned definition, until such time as the city should sell the system, including the extension, at a profit.
*598For the reasons stated, the state should be required to refund to the city of Kennewick the excise tax it collected on funds the city received as “reimbursement for the cost of constructing.”
In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.
Hill, J. and Barnett, J. Pro Tern., concur with Ott, J.
February 25, 1966. Petition for rehearing denied.