<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">It is an interest in the property that runs with title but not ownership or interest in the title as defined under RCW 82.45.010<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John J. Sullivan, Esq.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 11, 2020 12:21 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Excise Tax on Easement<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Reaching back to first year of law school, I’ve always understood a grant of an easement as a conveyance of a property interest that runs with title, not just a license for use. That’s something different.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/easement-basics.html">https://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/easement-basics.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If there’s no consideration. There’s no REET or affidavit. I’m not a dirt attorney, just a dumb tax attorney, so I’m not certain when that would occur. Maybe easements to municipalities in lieu of condemnation? But if I receive cash in
exchange for an access easement across my neighbor’s land I would fully expect to pay REET on that grant. In this hypothetical the consideration is also in the form of a grant of an easement. The thing too is the easements may not be of equal value. But each
does have value. It will run with the land. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bryce Dille<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 11, 2020 11:39 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <<a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Excise Tax on Easement<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I think there is no statutory basis for that WAC on easements look at RCW 82.45.010 which defies a sale as a conveyence, grant , assignment, quitclaim, or transfer of or title to real property. An easement only
conveys the right to use the property subject to the easement and doesn’t affect the title or ownership. The balance of that WAC talks about tax on development rights etc<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John J. Sullivan, Esq.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 11, 2020 1:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <<a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Excise Tax on Easement<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Matt and Bryce:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How is it not taxable?? There is valuable consideration being paid by both fee owner. Up to now they’ve been tolerating trespass by each other. Now they’re going to formalize the arrangement and grant each other enforceable rights to trespass.
It’s not adverse possession, since it’s been with permission. But for the mutuality there would be a cash payment by the recipient.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sorry, but I think you get an appraiser to value each easement grant. I’m not a dirt attorney, so I can’t tell you whether the neighbors record one easement that applies to both parcels, or separate ones from each side, but either way the
value is the same. In the case of a single recording the consideration is combined and presumably the tax is split. In the case of separate recordings, they each pay there respective shares of the overall value – assuming the easement extends equally into
parcels of equal value. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You could go for a letter ruling, but I’m not sure what argument you would have for exemption. There’s definitely consideration being exchanged between the parties.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unless … and this is a half-baked thought … you take the position the easement existed at the time the current owners took title (if supported by the facts) and you can get the prior owners to rerecord the prior deeds, with the “easement”
recited in the deed, and claim exemption under WAC 458-61A-217. But that’s really a half-baked idea. The dirt attorneys would have to opine on whether the “easement” existed at the time of the prior conveyance and should have been included in the old deeds.
I think that’s the only way this would pass muster.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s late. If I’m way off base, let me know. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John J. Sullivan<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bryce Dille<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 10, 2020 5:14 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <<a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Excise Tax on Easement<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">WAC 458-61A-111 states that an excise tax affidavit is only required where valuable consideration is given It states the affidavit is not required if not taxable and your transaction would not fall under that
category since it is not taxable under the WACS you cited.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Matt Yates<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 10, 2020 4:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBAPT] Excise Tax on Easement<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Hello Listmates. Posting the question below for another attorney at my firm. Any input is welcome since we have not encountered this issue before.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Two adjacent lots share a driveway. The owners want to establish a mutual easement for use of the shared driveway before one of the properties is sold to a third party.
<span style="background:white">The driveway easement will straddle the property line 10 feet on each side, and both lot owners will drive over the easement. </span>I'm looking at the excise tax WACs and see no exemption for this transaction - WAC 458-61A-11
says easements are taxed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;background:white">No money is being exchanged - the parties are just trying to forestall any disputes about the use of the shared driveway before selling to someone they don't know (there's also
an included road maintenance agreement that is new). This transaction feels more akin to the boundary line adjustment exception under WAC 458-61A-109(2)(b) and example (3)(a). I know it's not a boundary line dispute and no quit claim deed is being given,
but it still feels like it's a resolution of a dispute over USE of the property.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Would WAC 458-61A-215 apply? Again that exemption talks about quit claim deeds, not easements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;background:white">Am I missing an exemption here?</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;background:white">If it will be taxed, how do I determine the value of the property to be taxed?</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;background:white">Also, since each is giving an easement to the other, are there 2 transactions requiring two separate Affidavits and taxes to be paid? (I feel I'm overthinking this part).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Matthew D. Yates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Attorney at Law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Yates Marshall, PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">10000 NE 7th Avenue, Suite 200<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Vancouver, WA 98685<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Phone: (360) 449-6100<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Fax: (360) 449-6111<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="mailto:matt@yatesmarshall.com">matt@yatesmarshall.com</a> (<b>New Email Address</b>)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="http://www.yatesmarshall.com">www.yatesmarshall.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>