Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60254-7-II Published Opinion.pdf

On the other hand, . . . no exclusion is allowed with respect to amounts
received by (1) a doctor for furnishing medicine or drugs as a part of his treatment;
(2) a dentist for furnishing gold, silver or other property in conjunction with his
services; (3) a garage for furnishing parts in connection with repairs; (4) a
manufacturer or contractor for materials purchased in his own name or in the name
of his customer if the manufacturer or contractor is obligated to the vendor for the
payment of the purchase price, regardless of whether the customer may also be so
obligated; (5) any person engaging in a service business or in the business of
installing or repairing tangible personal property for charges made separately for
transportation or traveling expense.

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

No. 60254-7-II

original) (quoting Christensen, O’Connor, Garrison & Havelka v. Dep’t of Revenue, 97 Wn.2d

764, 769, 649 P.2d 839 (1982)).

The primary inquiry is whether the taxpayer can establish the existence of an agency

relationship. City of Tacoma v. William Rogers Co., 148 Wn.2d 169, 177-78, 60 P.3d 79 (2002).

“‘An agency relationship generally arises when two parties consent that one shall act under the

control of the other.’” Wash. Imaging Servs., 171 Wn.2d at 562 (quoting Rho, 113 Wn.2d at 570).

However, how the parties describe themselves in contract documents does not control the existence

of an agency relationship; rather, an agency relationship depends on the particular facts and

circumstances of each case. Id. at 563; accord Rho, 113 Wn.2d at 570 (“Determination of an

agency relationship is not controlled by the manner in which the parties contractually describe

their relationship.”).