[Legislativecommittee1] Sign up to testify/indicate support on tax on recording fees bills

Sun Jan 26 09:41:21 PST 2025

Hi All – here is the link to sign up to testify or indicate support for a bill CSI<https://app.leg.wa.gov/csi/>.

Use this same link if you just want to sign in “pro” but not testify.  There are two hearings on Tuesday.  HB 1115 is being heard in House Finance at 8 am and SB 5111 is being heard in Senate Ways & Means at 4 pm.

You can sign up to testify individually or you can sign up as a panel of three.  Either way, the Chair will likely call three people at a time to testify.  The DOR has signed in to testify as “other” meaning they are going to express their concerns.

Let’s get several people signed up to testify and as many of our members as possible signed up in support, even if they don’t want to testify.

For those who are testifying, the best approach is to tell your story as a small business owner and how the prospect of paying back taxes would harm your business. If you have specific experience with this, share that experience.

Testimony will be limited to two minutes.  I suggest writing it out and then time yourself to see if you’re within the timeframe (it goes by fast).  It’s possible that they can limit testimony to one minute if the hearing agenda is full.  The afternoon hearing agenda in Ways & Means appears to be more full than the morning hearing in House Finance, so have a plan if you’re instructed to limit it to one minute (figure out in advane what you would cut out).

Many thanks,

Carrie

Carrie Tellefson, JD, President
Sound Government Solutions
253-576-9908 (cell)

[cid2387524142*81be06f7-0e2f-4cbb-ba84-52a5c8d90d15]

I understand that everyone has their own way of working.  I’m sending this email at a time that suits my schedule, but there’s no expectation for you to read, reply or act on it outside your regular work hours.

From: Legislativecommittee1 <legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com> on behalf of Maureen Pfaff <maureen at olypentitle.com>
Date: Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 3:10 PM
To: George Peters <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>, legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com <legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>
Subject: Re: [Legislativecommittee1] DOR meeting yesterday
Attached are some talking points I've come up with this morning as possible starting points for testimony.

I plan to focus my testimony on the confusion created when auditors from the DOR interpret the law differently from one audit to another.  I'm following the instructions and guidance provided to me from the auditor in 2016 in which they agreed with me that recording fees are pass through expenses and not subject to sales tax or B&O; but when my audit has been presented in more recent audits as guidance from the DOR on the issue of the tax treatment of recording fees by other title companies it has been dismissed as a mistake by their auditors.  Those audits have been appealed but no final decisions have been issued, and it's been over two years on one of them.  I have not been issued any new guidance from DOR to alert me that I was given faulty instructions, so which auditor am I to believe?  We are asking the legislature to provide us with clarity we can all rely on.

________________________________
From: Legislativecommittee1 <legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com> on behalf of George Peters <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 12:33 PM
To: legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com <legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>
Subject: Re: [Legislativecommittee1] DOR meeting yesterday

Here is the article that Maureen referenced, in PDF format.

George

George Peters, WTP

Executive Director

Washington Land Title Association

https://washingtonlandtitle.com

Mail: PO Box 328, Lynnwood, WA 98046

Delivery: 6817 208th St SW, #328, Lynnwood, WA 98036

206-437-5869 (Mobile)

206-260-4731 (Fax)

execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at wltaonline.org>

[WLTA Logo w-Ring Blue 1a][cid:image002.jpg at 01DB6F24.F3D1A470]

This is a confidential communication intended solely for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy it and call George Peters at 206-437-5869 immediately. Thank you.

From: Legislativecommittee1 <legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com> On Behalf Of Maureen Pfaff
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 11:29 AM
To: legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com
Subject: [Legislativecommittee1] DOR meeting yesterday

All,

JP, Michelle, George, Carrie and I met with Rep Tharinger and two individuals from the DOR yesterday.  In the course of the discussion the DOR representatives made two statements that were surprising to me.

  1.  There is no need for them to issue guidance or clarification on the correct tax treatment of recording fees because it's been available to us online since 2013 through Det. No. 12-0374, 32 WTD 198 (September 9, 2013).  Why wasn't this brought up in the meeting we had with DOR months ago when we explained our position?
  2.  Rule 111 does not apply to Recording Fees and is not the test used to determine their taxability.

I asked, if the DOR has specifically ruled on this issue in 2013, why did the audit conducted on my business in 2015 and finalized in 2016 not require payment of back taxes on recording fees or instruction to me to collect Sales Tax and pay B&O Tax on recording fees going forward?   It was initially included in the assessment and the only rule they brought up to determine taxability was Rule 111.  I successfully argued that we meet all three tests for recording fees being qualified as advance and reimbursements under Rule 111 which resulted in the auditor and his supervisor removing the charges during the conference held to discuss the initial findings prior to the audit being finalized and an assessment letter issued.  (both the initial letter and the final assessment letter are attached)  The response yesterday was that DOR employees are human, and humans make mistakes.

I read the WTD from 2013 today (attached for reference) and it is mainly focused on the tax treatment of the document preparation charges for reconveyance fees, recording fees are mentioned one time in passing in the seven-page document.  I would never have thought that this case clarified the issue of taxability of recording fees had I been looking for guidance.  However, the one reference made to recording fees is that document recording is required in order to complete the escrow services we're contracted to provide, thereby making them a cost of doing business.  Rule 111 is discussed throughout the document and, as that is the rule used to determine if a fee is a qualified advance and reimbursement, I fail to see how it isn't relevant to our discussion.

Recording fees pass all three tests:

  1.  They are a customary reimbursement for an advance made to procure a service for the client.  true
  2.  They are for services that the taxpayer does not and cannot render.  true
  3.  The taxpayer is not liable for the payment except as an agent for the client.  true: An escrow company or a title company providing escrow services is acting in the capacity of a dual agent to the principals in the transaction.  We represent each party equally and owe them a fiduciary duty to act as their agent in the handling of all funds and property entered into the escrow. *

I asked for an explanation of what specifically makes the recording fees collected and paid through escrow different from all the other items collected and paid through escrow (REETA, loan payoffs, the net proceeds paid out to the seller for example) so that I could better understand their position and the response was, we aren't auditors and don't really understand your business so we can't answer that question.

The auditor said that same thing to me repeatedly throughout my audit (that he didn't really understand how escrow works), so we met monthly for six months and I answered all of his questions about the process of providing escrow services.  He initially included recording fees in the audit findings and said I could make my case for why they shouldn't be included during the supervisor conference where the supervisor would discuss the tax law as they have applied it, and changes would be made as appropriate.  Ultimately, he and his supervisor agreed that the recording fees qualified as a passthrough, but according to the DOR I can't rely on the findings of this auditor as given to me on the Auditor's Detail of Differences and Instructions to Taxpayer (attached).

Businesses are held responsible for understanding and following the law and the DOR says we are welcome to ask for guidance and clarification if we are unsure of something.  Yet when presented with the findings and instructions of their own auditors, whose job is to understand tax law and how it applies to our business, the response is that they made a mistake.  I would like to also point out that my audit has been brought up in at least two audits conducted in the past four years and dismissed as being an incorrect interpretation of the law by the current auditors - yet nothing has been brought to my attention by DOR to alert me to this fact.  I have been following their instructions in filing my Excise and B&O Tax returns since receiving them and clearly, in their current view, that means I'm filing incorrectly.  Both of these audits are languishing in a protracted appeals process so none of us have clarity on this issue.

If the DOR believes my audit findings were wrong, should they not have come back to me to let me know of this mistake?  At a minimum, should they not have issued public guidance to specifically say that Recording Fees do not qualify a pass-through expenses and why?  If they choose to audit my company again, will they accept the answer that I was following the explicit written instructions they gave me regarding the proper filing of our tax returns when they see that I haven't collected sales tax or paid B&O on recording fees?  Or will they say I shouldn't have relied on their Auditor and require me to pay back taxes and penalties for the intervening years that I was doing it "wrong"?  Are we, as business owners, supposed to rely on information gleaned through the grapevine from other business owners in our field about what their auditor told them to determine the proper reporting of taxes?  How am I to be sure that their auditor is right and mine is wrong?

I think at least some of our testimony on Tuesday should highlight to the committee members that the DOR is not providing clarity in their decisions, is not applying the law consistently from one audit to the next, and is not

*I found a really interesting paper in the Seattle University School of Law: digital commons by Robert C. Farrell that breaks down the Common Law Duties of an Escrow Holder and speaks specifically to the agency duties contained therein.  I can't find a way to download or print the document, but this link will take you to it. https://core.ac.uk/reader/235979120

Maureen

[cid:image003.png at 01DB6F24.F3D1A470]

Maureen Pfaff, President and CEO

Ph: (360) 457-4451 | Fax: (844) 513-2400

403 S Peabody St, Port Angeles, WA 98362

maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>

www.olypentitle.com<http://www.olypentitle.com/>

WARNING – FRAUDULENT FUNDING INSTRUCTIONS

Email hacking and fraud are on the rise to fraudulently misdirect funds. Please call your escrow officer immediately using contact information found from an independent source, such as the sales contract or internet, to verify any funding instructions received. We are not responsible for any wires sent by you to an incorrect bank account.

ATTENTION LENDERS:  Loan packages, complete with documents and balanced CD, must be received no later than 2:00 pm PST on the day prior to signing.

[Image removed by sender.]

CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek4TwC9owwY&feature=youtu.be>
ON WIRE FRAUD PREVENTION<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek4TwC9owwY&feature=youtu.be>

This electronic mail may constitute a client communication that is privileged at law.  It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons.
If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be corrected.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250126/70fe888d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6078 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250126/70fe888d/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 68742 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250126/70fe888d/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 76718 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250126/70fe888d/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17261 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250126/70fe888d/attachment-0003.png>