Court Opinion

ID: 9791103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:05:23.253033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.030312
License: Public Domain

Hill, J.
(dissenting)—This dissent will be brief.
The Constitution of the State of Washington says:
“No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.” Art. 1, § 12.
RCW 82.04.050 makes the retail sales tax applicable on the amounts received,
“. . . by persons engaging in the following business activities: (a) amusement and recreation businesses including but not limited to golf, pool, billiards, skating, ski lifts and tows and others but excluding bowling. ...”
It is urged that the exclusion of bowling is discriminatory and makes the tax unconstitutional.
Conceding wide discretion to the legislative power in the classification of trades, businesses, or occupations which may be subjected to an excise tax, the tests by which the constitutionality of such an exclusion must be determined are as follows: Is it arbitrary or capricious? Does it rest upon some reasonable consideration of difference or policy? State v. Hi-Lo Foods, Inc. (1963), 62 Wn. (2d) 534, 383 P. (2d) 910; State ex rel. Stiner v. Yelle (1933), 174 Wash. 402, 25 P. (2d) 91.
The trial court, applying this test, concluded not only that there were “no reasonable grounds,” but that there were no “conceivable grounds” which would justify the exclusion of bowling from the tax. The trial court, therefore, held the tax to be unconstitutional.
The majority reverses the trial court and holds that there was a reasonable basis on which to distinguish bowling from the other sports and that, therefore, the tax is constitutional. *895The majority refers to a high initial capitalization; but even higher would be a ski lift or a golf club. Nor are we convinced that bowling surpasses the other taxed sports in wholesome family appeal, nor in skill—at least the skiers and golfers, and perhaps others, would disagree.
The exclusion of bowling from the tax seems to me to have no reasonable or logical basis; hence, I would affirm the trial court.
Donworth and Weaver, JJ., concur with Hill, J.
June 10. 1965. Petition for rehearing denied.