[WSBARP] New DOR Guidance - Why REETA Legal Size and One Wet Ink Signature on REETA?

Thu Feb 24 10:01:51 PST 2022

Lengthy email with rationale from DOR to Spokane County Treasurer. In
summary, the wide variation in requirements is a county requirement  – not
DOR.  So much for consistency in the state.

--------------

Good morning Ryan,

I’m attaching the response from DOR.  Basically, it appears to be a
particular county requiring this, not DOR.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thank you,

Christa

*Sent:* Thursday, February 24, 2022 9:00 AM
*To:* Rice, Christa <CRice at spokanecounty.org>
*Subject:* RE: Why DOT Wants Legal Size and Wet Ink Signatures on REETA?

Hello Christa,

I have reviewed the attached email string and would be happy to provide
some clarification.  Mr. Rowley did not indicate who provided him with the
information that the Department was requiring the REETA affidavits in the 8
½ X 14 format starting March 1, 2022.  However, I could  probably make a
fairly accurate assumption.  It would be helpful to know who is actually
providing this information to him.

*Department REETA requirements*

The legislature provided the Department administration authority to create
the required forms needed to implement and administer the REET program in *RCW
82**.**45.150* *Applicability of general administrative
provisions**—**Departmental
rules, scope**—**Real estate excise tax affidavit form**—**Departmental
audit.*

“All of chapter *82.32*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.leg.wa.gov_RCW_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D82.32&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=qA3zK0EeZ4S5J9a8nlrQsoGO8g1vz6s2adhxCKTny5A&m=UP14VMbjFDhGgtT5jTMQG0pHQmI8rv1_T9vFLnyicWg&s=xhPTU_B6XSi2H7fLeb8eiv7LfN4mJMxzNxqUZFazMk4&e=>
RCW,
except RCW *82.32.030*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.leg.wa.gov_RCW_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D82.32.030&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=qA3zK0EeZ4S5J9a8nlrQsoGO8g1vz6s2adhxCKTny5A&m=UP14VMbjFDhGgtT5jTMQG0pHQmI8rv1_T9vFLnyicWg&s=280bxXof-fElF8ctAJ1rM_kwzEJptxu0thuT7QabvjE&e=>
, *82.32.050*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.leg.wa.gov_RCW_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D82.32.050&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=qA3zK0EeZ4S5J9a8nlrQsoGO8g1vz6s2adhxCKTny5A&m=UP14VMbjFDhGgtT5jTMQG0pHQmI8rv1_T9vFLnyicWg&s=4NmpjjPUUaMCHES3YJCExr-qpOOZmUs5tF24R9ouJi8&e=>
, *82.32.140*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.leg.wa.gov_RCW_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D82.32.140&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=qA3zK0EeZ4S5J9a8nlrQsoGO8g1vz6s2adhxCKTny5A&m=UP14VMbjFDhGgtT5jTMQG0pHQmI8rv1_T9vFLnyicWg&s=MqxHHlkKeSymw5HfJjF-VlmAHpm45k_PkG3kyhiI5yY&e=>
, *82.32.270*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.leg.wa.gov_RCW_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D82.32.270&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=qA3zK0EeZ4S5J9a8nlrQsoGO8g1vz6s2adhxCKTny5A&m=UP14VMbjFDhGgtT5jTMQG0pHQmI8rv1_T9vFLnyicWg&s=JJnfhh5p1dSS-ryqYPXN3tiPXfZhWv5h9VK30uIy1zw&e=>,
and *82.32.090*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.leg.wa.gov_RCW_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D82.32.090&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=qA3zK0EeZ4S5J9a8nlrQsoGO8g1vz6s2adhxCKTny5A&m=UP14VMbjFDhGgtT5jTMQG0pHQmI8rv1_T9vFLnyicWg&s=PTD1qBKWKuE5F3VJSG2RldMnDzdV6cNz6q4TwZWG1_A&e=>
(1)
and (10), applies to the tax imposed by this chapter, in addition to any
other provisions of law for the payment and enforcement of the tax imposed
by this chapter. *The department of revenue must by rule provide for the
effective administration of this chapter. The rules must prescribe and
furnish a real estate excise tax affidavit form verified by both the seller
and the buyer, or agents of each, to be used by each county, or the
department, as the case may be, in the collection of the tax imposed by
this chapter*, *(Emphasis added)  *except that an affidavit given in
connection with grant of an easement or right-of-way to a gas, electrical,
or telecommunications company, as defined in RCW *80.04.010*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.leg.wa.gov_RCW_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D80.04.010&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=qA3zK0EeZ4S5J9a8nlrQsoGO8g1vz6s2adhxCKTny5A&m=UP14VMbjFDhGgtT5jTMQG0pHQmI8rv1_T9vFLnyicWg&s=QpSx0Uw4DykA46Z1Lkhma8Ob44FWyc9LQWzCJbf0ieY&e=>,
or to a public utility district or cooperative that distributes
electricity, need be verified only on behalf of the company, district, or
cooperative and except that a transfer on death deed need be verified only
on behalf of the transferor. The department of revenue must annually
conduct audits of transactions and affidavits filed under this chapter.”

The official REETA is formatted using a 8 ½” X14” due to the amount of
required data and the minimum white space needed for taxpayers and
stakeholders to complete each field for the transaction in a legible
manner.  Once the taxpayer or stakeholder submits the affidavit to the
county, the affidavit is imaged for state record retention requirements and
to make the original affidavit available to the Department or the public in
an electronic manner upon request.

Not all counties use the same imaging software, which determines whether a
county may accept the smaller 8 ½” X 11” size form or require the standard
8” ½ X 14” size.  The data on the imaged affidavit must be *clearly visible*
to the Department and some counties will not accept the smaller size as it
is not clearly displayed, thus illegible, in the saved image.  So each
county must make the decision whether their imaging software will accept
the smaller sized REETA’s or not.  Again, it is a customer courtesy if a
county is able to accept the smaller 8 ½” X 11” sized affidavit.

My assumption is that one of the counties has made the determination they
can no longer support the smaller sized affidavit due to this imaging issue
and has notified their taxpayers and stakeholders they will no longer
accept the smaller size form.  However, none of the counties have notified
me of such a change but they are well within their administration right to
do so.

For this specific reason, the Department has a pop-up warning when
taxpayers or stakeholders access the affidavits on the Department’s
website.

*DOR signature requirements*

The REETA signatures are addressed in *WAC 458-61A-303(8) Completion of the
affidavit*

“The department will provide a real estate excise tax affidavit to be
completed by the taxpayer and filed with the agent of the county where the
property is located. Affidavits will be furnished by the department to the
county agents and accessible to the public in one or more formats to be
determined by the department. Alternative forms may be used, as long as
they are in a format accepted by the department.

*In most instances, the affidavit must be signed by the seller or the
seller's agent and the buyer or the buyer's agent, under oath, certifying
that all information on the affidavit is complete and correct.* *(Emphasis
added)  *However, an affidavit given in connection with the grant of an
easement or right of way to a utility company, public utility district or
cooperative, or a governmental entity needs to be signed only on behalf of
the entity purchasing the utility right of way or easement. In addition, an
affidavit given in connection with the transfer of real property pursuant
to a transfer on death deed need only be signed on behalf of the transferor
by the designated beneficiary(ies) named in the transfer on death deed.”

The Department requires the REETA be either signed in person (wet
signature) or by a docu-sign technology.  We will not accept a “signature
font” in lieu of the in person or docu-sign signatures as the grantor and
grantee (or their agents) are signing under penalty of perjury.   We do not
require “at least one wet ink signature and allow one e-signed”.  That may
be a county requirement, but I would need more information.  If the county
does have that requirement, the Department would potentially support their
decision.  Again, I would need additional information so I could speak to
the county to understand this requirement.

Thank you,

*Working together to fund Washington's future*

*Subject:* FW: Why DOT Wants Legal Size and Wet Ink Signatures on REETA?

External Email

Good morning

We have been receiving strange questions regarding changes to Excise
submissions.  I’m attaching one such email below.  Can you please tell me
if DOR is forcing submitters to use legal size REETAs and at least one wet
ink signature and allow one e-signed?  I hear it’s to begin on March 1,
2022?

I know you are very busy, so I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Thank you,

Christa Rice

Treasury Operations Manager

Spokane County Treasurer’s Office

509-477-3032

crice at spokanecounty.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220224/eac9c384/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220224/eac9c384/image001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 31015 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220224/eac9c384/image002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13301 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220224/eac9c384/image003.png>