Used floating homes

From the 2024 DOR Tax Exemption Study

; Dep’t of Revenue v. Boeing Co., 85 Wn.2d 663, 538 P.2d 505 (1975); Oden v. Seattle, 72 Wn.2d 221, 432 P.2d 642 (1967). In applying this test, Taxpayer relies on Det. No. 00-122, 20 WTD 461 (2000). With respect to the first prong, the Department stated in 20 WTD 461 as follows: [T]he conduit, manholes, and other structures that make up the line are firmly affixed to the soil. The strands of cable, on the other hand, are attached to the conduit, and are removable. This raises the question whether the strands of cable satisfy the first prong, or should be treated separately from the conduit and other items that are clearly annexed to the soil. We believe the better argument is that the cable also is sufficiently annexed to the real property to satisfy the first prong. The cable is specifically fabricated for burial in underground conduit, and is a necessary functioning part of the underground transmission system . . . . Taxpayer’s reliance on 20 WTD 461 is misplaced; that determination is clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. 20 WTD 461 involved the purchase an entire fiber-optic cable network that was buried underground almost exclusively over existing easements gran