Court Opinion

ID: 9898048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:28:05.582473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:52.425528
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
                                                                                                   Filed
                                                                                             Washington State
                                                                                             Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Division Two

                                                                                             January 31, 2023

           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                              DIVISION II
        ROYAL OAKS COUNTRY CLUB, a                                       No. 56478-5-II
        Washington Non-Profit Corporation,

                                     Appellant,

               v.

        WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF                              PUBLISHED OPINION
        REVENUE,

                                     Respondent,

              LEE, J. — Royal Oaks Country Club (Royal Oaks) appeals the superior court’s order

       granting summary judgment for the Department of Revenue (DOR) and denying summary

       judgment for Royal Oaks. Royal Oaks argues that the superior court erred by ruling that Royal

       Oaks’ initiation fees for new club members were only partially deductible under RCW 82.04.4282.

              We hold that the superior court erred by ruling that Royal Oaks’ initiation fees were only

       partially deductible under RCW 82.04.4282. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the superior

       court to enter summary judgment for Royal Oaks.

                                                   FACTS

              After performing a tax audit on Royal Oaks for tax period from January 2011 through

       March 2016, DOR determined that a portion of Royal Oaks’ initiation fees for new members was

       tax deductible and other portions were non-deductible based on DOR’s interpretation of RCW
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

       82.04.4282. Royal Oaks unsuccessfully appealed DOR’s determination, paid the taxes, and filed

       a complaint for a tax refund in superior court.

              The parties agreed to a set of stipulated facts outlined below and filed cross motions for

       summary judgment. The superior court denied Royal Oaks’ motion for summary judgment,

       granted DOR’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice Royal Oaks’ request

       for a tax refund.

       A.     ROYAL OAKS’ SERVICES AND MEMBERSHIP LEVELS

              Royal Oaks is a nonprofit corporation that owns and operates a country club. Royal Oaks

       offers several amenities including a golf course, golf pro shop, fitness center, clubhouse with

       several dining options, golf practice facility, and swimming facility. Non-member guests must

       pay “greens fees” to access the golf facilities. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 231.

              Royal Oaks offers several levels of membership. Proprietary members receive full access

       to all of Royal Oaks’ facilities and services. Proprietary members can vote in elections for Royal

       Oaks’ directors and officers and are eligible to serve in those roles. Additionally, Royal Oaks must

       receive proprietary members’ approval for “‘extraordinary issues’” specified in the bylaws. CP at

       46. Proprietary members can seek approval from Royal Oaks’ board to transfer their membership

       to a family member or business owned by a family member. And proprietary members who resign

       and relinquish membership can receive a “‘refund equity’” of 25 percent of the current proprietary

       member initiation fee at the board’s discretion. CP at 47

              Corporate members receive full access to all of Royal Oaks’ facilities and services. Each

       corporate membership is “owned by a registered business entity for the benefit of a designated

       employee.” CP at 47.

                                                         2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

               Intermediate members receive full access to all of Royal Oaks’ facilities and services.

       Intermediate members pay half dues until they reach the age of 35, when their memberships are

       converted to proprietary memberships. Intermediate members cannot vote for or serve as directors

       or officers. Intermediate members cannot transfer their memberships.

               “‘Social with golf’” members have unlimited access to Royal Oaks’ fitness center,

       swimming facilities, dining facilities, and all social events. CP at 47. However, social with golf

       members have limited access to Royal Oaks’ golf course and practice facilities. Social with golf

       members may play one round of golf per month and access the practice facilities on their day of

       play. Social with golf members may purchase items from the golf pro shop. And social with golf

       members may purchase additional rounds of golf from November through March, and their

       children may compete in the junior golf tournament. Social with golf members cannot participate

       in tournaments, vote for directors or officers, or serve as directors or officers.

               Social members have unlimited access to the fitness center, swimming facilities, dining

       facilities, and all social events. However, social members cannot use Royal Oaks’ golf course or

       practice facilities. Social members may purchase items from the golf pro shop. Social members

       cannot vote for or serve as directors or officers.

               Dining members have unlimited access to Royal Oaks’ dining facilities. However, dining

       members cannot use Royal Oaks’ golf course, practice facilities, fitness center, or swimming

       facilities. Dining members may purchase items from the golf pro shop. Dining members cannot

       vote for or serve as directors or officers.

                                                            3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

       B.      ROYAL OAKS’ INITIATION FEES

               New members must pay a one-time initiation fee with their application to join Royal Oaks.

       The initiation fee amounts vary by membership level. During the tax period at issue, new members

       paid the following amounts:

                      Proprietary, Corporate, and
        Year                                                    Social with golf   Social      Dining
                      Intermediate
        2011          $10,000 (reduced to $5,000 in May         $1,000             $200
                      and June)
        2012          $10,000                                   $1,000             $200
        2013          $10,000                                   $1,500             $1,000
        2014          $10,000 (reduced to $5,000 in             $2,500             $1,500      $200
                      November and December)
        2015          $10,000                                   $2,500             $1,500      $200
        2016          $10,000                                   $2,500             $1,500      $200

       CP at 48.

               Members must also pay monthly dues which vary in amount by membership level.

       Significantly, members must pay their initiation fee and their first month’s dues before they may

       access any facilities, services, or social events. Members receive a monthly bill that includes

       charges for dues, greens fees, and other charges, which are separately stated and immediately due

       and payable. If a member does not pay their bill within 60 days, the member loses all membership

       privileges until they have fully paid their outstanding bills.

       C.      AUDIT AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

               In December 2014, Royal Oaks sought to deduct its initiation fees from its taxable income.

       DOR audited Royal Oaks for the tax period from January 2011 through March 2016. DOR’s

       auditor calculated the deductible portion of Royal Oaks’ initiation fees using former WAC 458-

                                                         4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

       20-183 (1995) (former Rule 183), which allowed for a deduction of bona fide initiation fees1 and

       dues. The auditor used the same calculation for both initiation fees and dues when determining

       whether Royal Oaks could take a deduction. Consistent with its calculation for dues, the auditor

       determined that only a percentage of Royal Oaks’ initiation fees were deductible as bona fide

       initiation fees and that the remainder of the initiation fees were taxable as goods or services

       provided to members. DOR then assessed $2,640.00 in business and occupation taxes and

       $45,245.00 in retail sales taxes arising from Royal Oaks’ income related to initiation fees.

              Royal Oaks appealed to DOR, arguing that its initiation fees were wholly deductible under

       RCW 82.04.4282. DOR rejected Royal Oaks’ arguments and affirmed its audit results relating to

       the deductibility of initiation fees. Royal Oaks petitioned for reconsideration, which DOR denied.

       Royal Oaks paid the taxes assessed by DOR.

              Royal Oaks then filed a tax refund action in the superior court, again arguing that its

       initiation fees were wholly deductible under RCW 82.04.4282. The parties jointly filed a partial

       1
         Former Rule 183 provided that “initiation fees” were those amounts paid solely to initially admit
       a person as a member to a club or organization. Former WAC 458-20-183(2)(i). Former Rule 183
       defined “bona fide initiation fees” to include only one-time amounts paid that genuinely represent
       the value of membership in the club or similar organization. Former WAC 458-20-183(2)(i).
       According to former Rule 183, bona fide initiation fees “shall not include any amount paid for or
       attributable to the privilege of receiving any goods or services other than mere nominal
       membership.” Former WAC 458-20-183(2)(i). Former Rule 183 provided that individuals
       seeking deductions from initiation fees may use one of two calculation methods to determine how
       much of their initiation fees are deductible. Former WAC 458-20-183(4)(c). Royal Oaks does not
       challenge the calculation method itself on appeal but instead argues that the initiation fees were
       wholly deductible and should not have been subject to the calculation.

             Former Rule 183 was amended in 2018, and the provisions relied on by DOR were deleted.
       Wash. St. Reg. 18-11-126.

                                                        5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

       stipulation of facts and filed cross motions for summary judgment. The superior court denied

       Royal Oaks’ motion for summary judgment, granted DOR’s motion for summary judgment, and

       ruled that Royal Oaks’ initiation fees were only partially deductible as bona fide initiation fees

       under RCW 82.04.4282.

              Royal Oaks appeals the superior court’s summary judgment orders.

                                                   ANALYSIS

       A.     LEGAL PRINCIPLES

              1.       Summary Judgment

              We review summary judgment decisions de novo. Wash. Imaging Servs., LLC v. Dep’t of

       Revenue, 171 Wn.2d 548, 555, 252 P.3d 885 (2011). “Summary judgment is proper if there are

       no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

       Id.; CR 56(c). Where there are no disputed issues of material fact and the issue is how the tax

       statutes and regulations apply to the facts of the case, we treat the issue as a question of law and

       review the decision de novo. Wash. Imaging, 171 Wn.2d at 555.

              2.       Statutory Interpretation

              This case presents questions of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Tesoro

       Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 173 Wn.2d 551, 556, 269 P.3d 1013 (2012). When

       engaging in statutory interpretation, our primary objective is to determine and carry out the

       legislature’s intent. Id. To determine the legislature’s intent, we first look to the statute’s plain

       language. Id.

              If the statute’s plain language is unambiguous, “we give the words their common and

       ordinary meaning.” Id. “‘Where statutory language is plain and unambiguous, courts will not

                                                        6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

       construe the statute but will glean the legislative intent from the words of the statute itself,

       regardless of contrary interpretation by an administrative agency.’” Id. (quoting Agrilink Foods,

       Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 153 Wn.2d 392, 396, 103 P.3d 1226 (2005)).

               A statute is ambiguous only if “‘it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.’”

       Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 762, 317 P.3d 1003 (2014) (quoting City of Seattle v.

       Winebrenner, 167 Wn.2d 451, 456, 219 P3d 686 (2009)). Only when a statute is ambiguous do

       we turn to statutory construction, legislative history, and relevant case law to determine legislative

       intent. Id.

               The plain meaning of a statute is “derived from the context of the entire act as well as any

       ‘related statutes which disclose legislative intent about the provision in question.’” Id. at 762

       (quoting Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 11, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). We

       give effect to all the language in a statute and do not render any portion meaningless or superfluous.

       Spokane County v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 192 Wn.2d 453, 458, 430 P.3d 655 (2018). We do

       not add words to statutes where the legislature chose to not include them. Ctr. for Envtl. Law &

       Policy v. Dep’t of Ecology, 196 Wn.2d 17, 32, 468 P.3d 1064 (2020). And we use the dictionary

       to determine the plain meaning of undefined words in a statute. Nissen v. Pierce County, 183

       Wn.2d 863, 881, 357 P.3d 45 (2015).

       B.      DEDUCTIBILITY OF INITIATION FEES

               Royal Oaks argues that the superior court erred by granting summary judgment for DOR

       because its initiation fees are wholly deductible under RCW 82.04.4282. We agree.

               RCW 82.04.4282 provides for deductions from taxable income for certain types of

       payments as follows:

                                                         7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

              In computing tax there may be deducted from the measure of tax amounts derived
              from bona fide (1) initiation fees, (2) dues, (3) contributions, (4) donations, (5)
              tuition fees, (6) charges made by a nonprofit trade or professional organization for
              attending or occupying space at a trade show, convention, or educational seminar
              sponsored by the nonprofit trade or professional organization, which trade show,
              convention, or educational seminar is not open to the general public, (7) charges
              made for operation of privately operated kindergartens, and (8) endowment funds.
              This section may not be construed to exempt any person, association, or society
              from tax liability upon selling tangible personal property, digital goods, digital
              codes, or digital automated services, or upon providing facilities or other services
              for which a special charge is made to members or others. If dues are in exchange
              for any significant amount of goods or services rendered by the recipient thereof to
              members without any additional charge to the member, or if the dues are graduated
              upon the amount of goods or services rendered, the value of such goods or services
              shall not be considered as a deduction under this section.

       The parties advance differing interpretations of RCW 82.04.4282.

              1.      First Sentence

              The first sentence of RCW 82.04.4282 states, in relevant part, that “bona fide . . . initiation

       fees” are deductible. Royal Oaks argues that “bona fide initiation fees” are all fees paid for

       initiation, so long as there is no speciousness, bad faith, fraud, or deceit in treating the payments

       as initiation fees. DOR argues that “bona fide initiation fees” include only the portion of the

       initiation fees that are genuinely paid for membership. Specifically, here, DOR argues that only

       $200 per initiation fee is “bona fide” because that is the cost of the lowest initiation fee, and all

       payments beyond $200 are attributable to the use of services and facilities.2

              Neither “bona fide” nor “initiation fees” are defined in Title 82 RCW, which addresses

       excise taxes. Therefore, we turn to the dictionary definition of those terms.

       2
         We note that at oral argument, DOR was unable to identify any situation where an initiation fee
       would be fully deductible. Wash. Court of Appeals oral argument, Royal Oaks Country Club v.
       Dep’t of Revenue, No. 56478-5-II (Oct. 20, 2022), at 24 min., 13 sec. through 25 min., 6 sec.,
       audio recording by TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Network, http://www.tvw.org.

                                                        8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

              “Bona fide” is defined as “made in good faith without fraud or deceit,” “SINCERE,” or “not

       specious or counterfeit: GENUINE.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 250

       (2002). “Initiation” is defined as “the act or an instance of formally initiating (as into an office,

       sect, or society).” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY at 1164 . Taken together,

       the ordinary, everyday meaning of “bona fide initiation fees” is fees paid genuinely for the act or

       instance of formally initiating someone.

              Here, the first sentence of RCW 82.04.4282 is unambiguous. The plain language of RCW

       82.04.4282 shows that “bona fide initiation fees” do not include dues because “dues” are listed

       separately in the first sentence of the statute and addressed separately in the third sentence, as

       discussed below. See RCW 82.04.4282. Thus, the first sentence of RCW 82.04.4282 clearly

       allows for a deduction to be taken for “bona fide initiation fees.” There is no dispute that the plain

       language of the statute only allows for a deduction of initiation fees that are genuinely related to

       the allowance of a person into club membership.3 It also is undisputed that new members pay a

       one-time initiation fee to become a member at Royal Oaks.

       3
         While we do not consider agency interpretations if the statute’s plain language is unambiguous,
       we note that this definition aligns with DOR’s own interpretation of “bona fide initiation fees” in
       former Rule 183, which was in effect during the tax periods at issue. See Jametsky, 179 Wn.2d at
       762. Former Rule 183 provided that “initiation fees” were those amounts paid solely to initially
       admit a person as a member to a club or organization. Former WAC 458-20-183(2)(i). Former
       Rule 183 defined “bona fide initiation fees” to include only one-time amounts paid that genuinely
       represent the value of membership in the club or similar organization. Former WAC 458-20-
       183(2)(i). According to former Rule 183, bona fide initiation fees “shall not include any amount
       paid for or attributable to the privilege of receiving any goods or services other than mere nominal
       membership.” Former WAC 458-20-183(2)(i).

                DOR amended former Rule 183 in 2018 and removed the part of the rule addressing
       initiation fees. Wash. St. Reg. 18-11-126. The stated purpose of this amendment was to address

                                                         9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

              DOR argues that Royal Oaks may not take a full deduction for its initiation fees because

       part of the initiation fees are for facilities and services, with new members paying higher initiation

       fees to gain access to more facilities and services. But the record shows that the higher initiation

       fees only correspond with the new member’s membership level. While the membership level

       determines the members’ ability to access more services and facilities, the membership level also

       determines a member’s ability to participate in tournaments, vote for leaders, serve in leadership

       positions, transfer memberships, and receive refund equities in the event of member resignation.

       Further, payment of the initiation fee does not automatically entitle new members to use Royal

       Oaks’ facilities and services. Rather, Royal Oaks’ new members must pay their first month’s dues

       along with the initiation fee before they are allowed to use the club’s facilities and services.

              Because the dues are billed separately from the initiation fee, the initiation fee does not

       include any dues, which, again, must be paid before members may use the club’s facilities and

       services. Members who fail to pay their monthly dues are denied membership privileges. Thus,

       Royal Oaks’ initiation fees are for new members to become members of the club, not for their use

       of club facilities or services. Therefore, Royal Oaks’ initiation fees fall within the plain language

       of the deduction for “bona fide initiation fees” allowed in the first sentence of RCW 82.04.4282.

       initiation fees in a different rule. Wash. St. Reg. 18-08-051. As of January 2023, DOR had not
       issued another rule addressing initiation fees.

              However, in October 2021, DOR issued Excise Tax Advisory (ETA) 3230.2021, which
       became effective in July 2022. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, Excise Tax Advisory 3230.2021 (Oct.
       22, 2021), https://taxpedia.dor.wa.gov/documents/current%20eta/3230.2021.pdf. ETA 3230.2021
       uses definitions for “bona fide initiation fees” that are substantially the same as those in former
       Rule 183.

                                                        10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

               2.      Second Sentence

               The second sentence of RCW 82.04.4282 limits the deduction allowed in the first sentence.

       Royal Oaks argues that the second sentence only disallows deductions for special payments made

       in exchange for a particular good or service, like receiving a free set of golf clubs or five free golf

       lessons. DOR argues that the second sentence disallows deductions for any payment made in

       exchange for access to facilities that the taxpayer would ordinarily charge people to access.

               The second sentence in RCW 82.04.4282 is also unambiguous. That sentence states, in

       relevant part, that the statute may not be construed as to allow any person, association, or society

       to be exempt from tax liability for “providing facilities or other services for which a special charge

       is made to members or others.” RCW 82.04.4282.

               Title 82 RCW does not define “special charge.” The dictionary defines “special” to mean

       “supplemental to the regular,” “confined to a definite field of action: designed or selected for a

       particular purpose, occasion or other end,” or “containing particulars: DETAILED, SPECIFIC —

       opposed to general.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY at 2186. Therefore, a

       “special charge” is a charge supplemental to the regular charges, or one that is specifically designed

       or selected for a particular purpose. And in the context of the statute and the arguments advanced

       by the parties, these charges must be specifically designed or selected for the use of Royal Oaks’

       facilities or services.

               Here, nothing in the record shows that Royal Oaks’ one-time initiation fees are specifically

       designed or selected for anything other than membership into the club. The record shows that a

       new member’s general use of the club’s facilities and services is not included in the initiation fee

       as a “special charge.” Contrary to DOR’s argument, the undisputed record shows that Royal Oaks’

                                                         11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

       initiation fees do not include any amounts that can be considered a “special charge” to allow the

       new member to access club facilities because dues are billed separately at the same time as the

       initiation fee. It is the payment of the monthly dues that allows members to use the club’s facilities

       and services.

              There may be included in the monthly dues bill charges beyond the use of the club’s

       facilities and services (e.g., food and drink purchases or merchandise purchases from the pro shop).

       These charges on the members’ monthly dues bills might constitute “special charges” because they

       are supplemental to the regular dues for the use of the club’s facility and services. But unlike

       special charges that may show up in a member’s monthly dues bill, the stipulated facts show that

       there are no “special charges” included in initiation fees (e.g., new members are not provided free

       golf lessons, any free products that are included in the initiation fee, or any other free goods or

       services).

              Therefore, the undisputed record shows that there is nothing included in the initiation fees

       that is a “special charge” within the limitation stated in the second sentence of RCW 82.04.4282.

       Because Royal Oaks’ initiation fees do not fall within the limitation on tax deductions in the second

       sentence of RCW 82.04.4282, Royal Oaks’ initiation fees remain fully deductible under the first

       sentence of RCW 82.04.4282.

              3.       Third Sentence

              The third sentence of RCW 82.04.4282 provides another limitation for the first sentence’s

       list of income that is deductible. The third sentence provides that

              [i]f dues are in exchange for any significant amount of goods or services rendered
              by the recipient thereof to members without any additional charge to the member,
              or if the dues are graduated upon the amount of goods or services rendered, the

                                                        12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

               value of such goods or services shall not be considered as a deduction under this
               section.

       RCW 82.04.4282.

               The parties contest whether this sentence applies only to dues or to the other types of

       transactions listed in the first sentence of RCW 82.04.4282. The plain language of the third

       sentence applies only to “dues” and does not mention any of the other payments listed in the first

       sentence of the statute. Because we must not add words where the legislature chose to not include

       them, we decline to extend the application of the third sentence to other payments that are not dues.

       See Ctr. for Envtl. Law, 196 Wn.2d at 32.

               This interpretation comports with the only adjudicated decision addressing the application

       of the statute’s third sentence to initiation fees. See Black Diamond Gun Club v. Dep’t of Revenue,

       No. 70949, 2010 WL 3944939, at *5 (Wash. Bd. of Tax Appeals Sept. 14, 2010) (“The last

       sentence of RCW 82.04.4282 indicates that if dues are in exchange for any significant amount of

       goods and services, then they shall not be deductible. There is no such proviso for the category of

       initiation fees.”).

               While DOR argues that other published cases support its position, the cases that DOR cites

       are inapposite because they analyze the predecessor to the current statute and address only dues.

       See Group Health Co-op. of Puget Sound, Inc. v. Wash. State Tax Comm’n, 72 Wn.2d 422, 434,

       433 P.2d 201 (1967) (holding that monthly fees were not deductible because they were dues for or

       graduated upon the amount of services rendered); Red Cedar Shingle Bureau v. State, 62 Wn.2d

       341, 346-47, 382 P.2d 503 (1963) (holding that certain payments were not deductible as dues or

       contributions and that such payments would fall into the dues exception even if they were dues);

                                                        13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56478-5-II

       Auto. Club of Wash. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 27 Wn. App. 781, 786-87, 621 P.2d 760 (1980) (holding

       that annual dues were not deductible).

              The income at issue here is initiation fees, not dues. Dues for the use of the club’s facilities

       and services are billed separately and not included in the initiation fee. Thus, the third sentence’s

       limitation for tax deductions under RCW 82.04.4282 is inapplicable, and Royal Oaks’ initiation

       fees remain fully deductible under the first sentence of RCW 82.04.4282.

                                                 CONCLUSION

              We hold that the superior court erred by ruling that Royal Oaks’ initiation fees were only

       partially deductible under RCW 82.04.4282. Accordingly, we reverse the superior court’s order

       granting summary judgment for DOR and denying summary judgment for Royal Oaks, and we

       remand for the superior court to enter summary judgment for Royal Oaks.

                                                             Lee, J.
        We concur:

        Maxa, J.

        Cruser, A.C.J.

                                                        14