Did a Washington data center satisfy the employment conditions required to keep its sales-and-use-tax exemption certificate benefits?

Plain-English summary

The Washington Department of Revenue denied a data-center tenant's sales-and-use-tax exemptions because it established only five of the six new family-wage employment positions required for its leased space.

The tenant used an exemption certificate to buy eligible server equipment and installation services without tax. Based on the data-center space it occupied, RCW 82.08.986 required a net increase of six qualifying positions within six years after the certificate was issued. Audit found four undisputed qualifying positions; the appeal centered on two more employees.

Employee A did not count because the position already existed or had been filled before the certificate date. The employee was performing Washington data-center responsibilities and was associated with the Washington location before issuance; later changes in residence, withholding, lease status, or certificate of occupancy did not make the position "new" under the statutory definition.

Employee B did count. Although the employee later received short- and long-term disability benefits, the position remained a full-time position on the company's rolls and had satisfied the statutory criteria during the six-year period. The statute did not require continuous work throughout all six years. But four undisputed positions plus Employee B totaled only five, so the tenant still missed the six-position threshold and lost both exemptions.

What this means for you

Data-center owners and tenants

Build a certificate-date hiring baseline before claiming exempt purchases. Track each required position's creation date, first occupant, work location, hours, wage level, health coverage, and continued status.

HR and payroll teams

Payroll or residence changes after certification do not create a new position if the job existed or was filled earlier. Conversely, an employee's later disability leave does not necessarily erase a position that already satisfied the statute.

Tax incentive teams

Test the threshold position by position. One disqualified job can recapture a large equipment exemption, even when most requirements and nearly all required jobs are satisfied.

Common questions

Q: Why did Employee A fail the new-position test?

A: The record showed the position existed or was filled before the exemption certificate was issued. The statute measures newness at the certificate date.

Q: Did moving to Washington or changing payroll withholding after the certificate create a new job?

A: No. Those facts reflected the employee's location or payroll treatment, not whether the employment position already existed or had been filled.

Q: Why did Employee B count while on disability?

A: The statute did not require the employee to work continuously for all six years. The position remained full-time on the employer's rolls and met the criteria at another point during the statutory period.

Q: How many positions did the tenant establish?

A: Five: four accepted by audit plus Employee B. It needed six, so both the sales-tax and use-tax exemptions failed.

Citations and references

• RCW 82.08.986(1), (3), and (6) (eligible purchases, employment threshold, and qualifying tenants)
• RCW 82.12.986 (parallel use-tax exemption)
• RCW 82.04.050 and RCW 82.08.020; RCW 82.12.020 (underlying retail sales and use taxes)
• Laws of 2010, 1st Special Session, ch. 1, § 1 (jobs and investment purpose)
• Budget Rent-A-Car v. Department of Revenue, 81 Wn.2d 171, 500 P.2d 764 (1972)
• Stroh Brewing Co. v. Department of Revenue, 104 Wn. App. 235, 15 P.3d 692 (2001)

Source

• Landing page: Washington Tax Decisions ZIP files
• Original PDF: 45WTD071.pdf
• Source archive: Volume 45 ZIP (member wtdvol45/45WTD071.pdf)

Original ruling text

Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (June 9, 2026)

71

Cite as Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (2026)
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND HEARINGS DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Petition for Correction of )
Assessment of
)
)
)
...
)
)

DETERMINATION
No. 20-0129
Registration No. . . .

RCW 82.08.986; RCW 82.12.986: SALES TAX EXEMPTION – USE TAX
EXEMPTION – DATA CENTER EXEMPTION – CERTIFICATE –
EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS – QUALIFYING EMPLOYEE. Among
other requirements, in order to receive the sales and use tax exemption for purchases using a data center tax exemption certificate, taxpayers must meet certain employment requirements, including creating a certain number of new permanent employment positions. In order to be a “new permanent employment position” under RCW 82.08.986(3)(c), the statute requires that the position not exist or not be filled before the exemption certificate is issued, and that it meet certain hourly and wage minimums and other criteria within the six-year statutory period. Headnotes are provided as a convenience for the reader and are not in any way a part of the decision or in any way to be used in construing or interpreting this Determination. LaMarche, T.R.O. – A taxpayer that operates a data center in Washington State disputes the disallowance of certain sales and use tax exemptions it claimed under its data center tax exemption certificate. The Department disallowed the exemptions on the basis that the taxpayer did not meet certain employment requirements in the six-year period after it acquired the certificate. We deny the petition. 1 ISSUE Has Taxpayer shown that it met the employment requirements to qualify for the sales and use tax exemptions in RCW 82.08.986 and RCW 82.12.986, respectively, on its purchases of tangible personal property, and related labor and services, for use in its data center in Washington State? FINDINGS OF FACT
. . . (Taxpayer) provides . . . services to a variety of clients, . . . . Taxpayer has an advisory office in . . . Washington, and also leases approximately . . . square feet of space for its data center in

1

Identifying details regarding the taxpayer and the assessment have been redacted pursuant to RCW 82.32.410.

Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (June 9, 2026)

72

Washington (Data Center), that houses computer server equipment. Taxpayer owns the tangible personal property located inside the building, and has employees working at the Data Center. Taxpayer applied for and received a Certificate for Sales Tax Exemption for Purchases by Data Centers (Exemption Certificate) numbered . . . . The certificate was issued on . . . [Exemption Certificate issue date]. The certificate was later renumbered as . . . . The Department’s Audit Division (Audit) audited Taxpayer for the period from January 1, 2010, through October 31, 2016 (Audit Period). Audit found that Taxpayer used the Exemption Certificate to make tax-free purchases of certain eligible server equipment and related labor and services for installation of the equipment in its Data Center during the Audit Period. Audit examined Taxpayer’s use of the Exemption Certificate, and whether it had met the legal requirements to receive the use tax or retail sales tax exemptions on its purchases. Audit reviewed Taxpayer’s asset reports, purchase invoices, employment reports, job description reports, the Exemption Certificate, Annual Tax Incentive Reports, Annual Tax Incentive Surveys, and Taxpayer’s written memoranda. Audit determined that Taxpayer had not met certain employment requirements necessary to qualify for the tax exemptions in RCW 82.08.986 and RCW 82.12.986 (hereinafter “data center exemption”), and disallowed the claimed exemptions. The Department issued an assessment on . . . , in the amount of $ . . . , which consisted of $ . . . in use tax and $ . . . in interest. No penalties were assessed, pursuant to RCW 82.32.535 and RCW 82.32.585. Taxpayer did not pay the assessment, but timely filed a petition for review. Employment Verification. To qualify for the data center exemption, Taxpayer was required to establish that net employment at the Data Center increased by a minimum of thirty-five family wage employment positions, or three family wage employment positions for each twenty thousand square feet of space, or less, newly dedicated to housing operating computer servers at the Data Center. Because Taxpayer leased approximately . . . square feet of space, it was required to show that net employment during the Audit Period increased by six qualified employment positions. When reviewing the employment positions, Audit did not include independent contractors or positions filled by temporary workers short-term. Audit concluded that at no time during the Audit Period did Taxpayer meet the net increase of six qualified positions necessary to meet the employment requirement at the Data Center. Taxpayer concedes that it did not meet the employment requirements in 2010 through 2014. In none of the years from 2010 through 2012 did it have a total of six employees at the Data Center. In 2013 and 2014, some of the employees were not paid enough to meet the wage thresholds required under the statute, and one employee, Employee A, had been hired before the certificate was issued and did not qualify for any year in the audit period, an issue we will discuss in more detail below.

Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (June 9, 2026)

73

Taxpayer argues that two employees, Employee A and Employee B, met the criteria to qualify in 2015 and 2016, and that by including their positions Taxpayer would meet the minimum net increase of six qualified employment positions required for the exemption. In its response to the petition, Audit states that four of the six employees at the Data Center qualified in 2015 and in 2016, but that the positions filled by Employee A and Employee B did not, explaining its findings and conclusions about Employee A and Employee B as follows: Employee A. Audit found that Taxpayer relocated Employee A from . . . [out-of-state] . . . [prior to the Exemption Certificate issue date] to work at the Data Center. Audit noted that the Exemption Certificate was not issued until . . . [after Employee A’s employment start date], and that based on its understanding of the statute, new, permanent employment positions must start after the date of issuance of the exemption certificate in order to qualify. On those grounds, Audit concluded that Employee A’s position did not qualify to be included in the calculation of the net increase in employment in any year of the audit, including 2015 and 2016, because his employment started prior to the date of issuance of the Exemption Certificate. Employee B. Audit found that Employee B began employment after the Exemption Certificate was issued, as required by the statute, and that he met the wage threshold requirements for all years he worked during the Audit Period through 2014. However, in October 2014, Employee B was placed on short-term disability pay, and his disability payments were made by the insurance company, not by Taxpayer, and were at 60 percent of his usual pay. After being placed on shortterm disability on October 14, 2015, Employee B went on long-term disability from April 11, 2016, through the remainder of 2016. Audit concluded that because Employee B received disability pay in 2015 and 2016, and did not provide 40 hours of weekly work on a full-time basis physically located at the Data Center, he did not meet the wage threshold to be a qualified employee. Taxpayer’s contentions Taxpayer argues that it met the employment requirements in 2015 and 2016, and agrees that the issue here turns on whether Employee A and Employee B met the employment requirements in those years. Employee A. In its memorandum . . . , Taxpayer contends that Audit failed to consider all relevant facts and circumstances related to Employee A’s employment. Taxpayer asserts that there are three dates that the Department should consider as reasonable start dates with regard to Taxpayer’s effort to establish qualifying new permanent positions in the Data Center. First, Taxpayer asserts, it did not receive its certificate of occupancy for the Data Center until . . . some months after . . . [the Exemption Certificate issue date]. Taxpayer argues, it “could not establish any permanent employment positions in [the Data Center] without an executed and final certificate of occupancy as there would be no permanent location to assign the permanent employment positions.” May 2019 Memo, at 1 (italics in original).

Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (June 9, 2026)

74

Next, Taxpayer offers . . . [a date prior to the Exemption Certificate issue date], as a reasonable start date, stating that this was the date it signed its lease with the building owner, and started remitting rent for its use of the Data Center. Prior to acquiring a leasehold interest in the property, Taxpayer argues, none of the positions were permanent, as all were contingent on the acquisition of the right to use the Data Center facility where employees could fulfill their employment duties. Finally, Taxpayer contends that . . . , [a date] three days after the Exemption Certificate was issued, could be used as Employee A’s hiring date for employment qualification purposes, because that was the date his tax withholding was changed from . . . [out-of-state] to Washington state. Taxpayer states that Employee A began to visit the Data Center building site in early fall of 2010 to inspect the construction of the facility and ensure the build was progressing as planned. Taxpayer states: “[Employee A] was dual-hatted at this time: He was charged with running a . . . data center facility . . . [ out-of-state] while also bearing the responsibility of visiting [Washington] as [Taxpayer’s] lead data center engineer to be eventually assigned to [the Data Center’s location in Washington].” Id., at 1. Taxpayer asserts: Through Thanksgiving 2010, [Employee A] lived an itinerant existence: Without relocating, [Employee A] stayed in a hotel room during his visits to Washington to inspect the construction of [Taxpayer’s] data center facility. It was not until the Friday after Thanksgiving 2010 did [Employee A] start the process of moving his family from . . . [outof-state] to [Washington]: On that date, . . . [Employee A] signed a lease for a rental leasing situation location to which he would remain in [sic] until he could finally settle into a permanent living situation. Thus, the change in withholding jurisdiction date becomes important: This is the date that . . . [Taxpayer] recognized that [Employee A] established a different residence and/or established enough of a presence in Washington, from a workperformance perspective, to require a change in withholding posture, changing from . . .
[out-of-state] to Washington. . . . [Employee A’s] itinerant existence implies that
[Employee A] did not establish permanent employment in Washington until his earnings and associated tax reporting correlated with his actual employment activity. May 2019 Memo, at 3. Taxpayer’s internal human resources portal links Employee A with the Data Center’s location in Washington as early as . . . [prior to the Exemption Certificate issue date]. Taxpayer asserts this is not a dispositive fact in light of the weight of other evidence it claims shows that Employee A’s employment position was established after the Exemption Certificate was issued. Employee B. Employee B began work at the Data Center on . . . [50 days] after the Exemption Certificate was issued. Taxpayer asserts that despite collecting disability pay in 2015 and 2016, Employee B was a full-time employee in those years, as it considers all individuals who are on long-term disability to be employees unless they are separated from the firm. Taxpayer asserts that it paid the premiums on all long-term disability benefits, and that employees on long-term disability receive the same medical benefits paid by Taxpayer as any other employee. Taxpayer also argues that when Employee B’s regular wages are added to his disability pay, he reaches the wage threshold required by the statute.

Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (June 9, 2026)

75

ANALYSIS
RCW 82.08.020 imposes a tax on retail sales in this state. Under RCW 82.04.050(1), the term “retail sale” includes sales of tangible personal property, and such sales are subject to sales tax, unless an exclusion or exemption applies. Washington imposes retail sales tax on each retail sale in this state unless an exemption applies. RCW 82.08.020. “Retail sale” also includes “the sale of or charge made for tangible personal property consumed and/or for labor and services rendered in respect to . . . [t]he constructing, repairing, decorating, or improving of new or existing buildings or other structures under, upon, or above real property of or for consumers.” RCW 82.04.050(2)(b). RCW 82.12.020 complements the sales tax and, in relevant part, imposes a use tax on the privilege of using within this state as a consumer, any article of tangible personal property or retail service for which sales tax legally due has not been paid by the present user. In 2010, the Legislature adopted certain tax exemptions related to the construction and operation of data centers, and the purchase of certain eligible server equipment and related labor and services needed to install that equipment. The Legislature explained its reasons for the exemptions, stating in relevant part, “It is the legislature's intent to encourage immediate investments in technology facilities that can provide an economic stimulus, sustain long-term jobs that provide living wages, and help build the digital infrastructure that can enable the state to be competitive for additional technology investment and jobs.” Laws of 2010, 1st sp. sess., ch. 1, § 1 (emphasis added). The new sales tax exemptions were codified in RWC 82.08.986, and use tax exemptions were codified in RCW 82.12.986, which indicate taxpayers qualify for the use tax exemptions only if they have qualified for and received a data center exemption certificate pursuant to RCW 82.08.986. 2 For simplicity, because the disputed employment requirements for the data center exemptions for sales tax and use tax are identical, in our discussion we will focus on the sales tax provisions in RCW 82.08.986, with the understanding that qualification under RCW 82.08.986 implies qualification under RCW 82.12.986. RCW 82.08.986 3 provides a retail sales tax exemption “for sales to qualifying businesses and to qualifying tenants of eligible server equipment to be installed, without intervening use, in an eligible computer data center, and to charges made for labor and services rendered in respect to installing eligible server equipment. . . .” RCW 82.08.986(1).

Sales tax provisions were adopted under Laws of 2010, 1st spec. sess., ch. 1, § 2. Use tax provisions were adopted under Laws of 2010, 1st spec. sess., ch.1, § 3. 3 In our discussion, we will refer to the relevant language in the most recent version of RCW 82.08.986. Other than minor changes not material here, it is the same language adopted in Laws of 2010, 1st spec. sess., ch. 23, § 1601, which revised the original language adopted earlier the same year (see Laws of 2010, 1st spec. sess., ch. 1, § 2) to expand on the employment requirements for qualifying businesses. In 2012, Laws of 2012, 2nd spec. sess., ch. 6, § 302 modified the statute again to use the term “qualifying tenants” when referring to lessees of space within a qualifying businesses’ space. In 2015, Laws of 2015, 3rd spec. sess., ch. 6, § 302 added provisions pertaining to facilities for which construction commenced after June 30, 2015, and before July 1, 2025. The newest version of the statute, Laws of 2017, ch. 135, § 26, simply added an end date of January 1, 2026, for the exemption as it applies to sales to qualifying businesses and tenants related to eligible power infrastructure. 2

Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (June 9, 2026)

76

There is no dispute that Taxpayer used the Exemption Certificate to make certain purchases without payment of retail sales tax. The issue here is whether Taxpayer met certain employment requirements under the statute to qualify for the data center sales and use tax exemptions. We note that tax exemptions are construed narrowly, and taxpayers bear the burden of proof when claiming a tax exemption. In general, “[t]axation is the rule and exemption is the exception.” Budget Rent–A–Car v. Dep’t of Rev., 81 Wn.2d 171, 174, 500 P.2d 764 (1972). “The taxpayer has the burden of establishing eligibility for an exemption.” Stroh Brewing Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 104 Wn. App. 235, 240, 15 P .3d 692 (2001). Thus, Taxpayer has the burden of showing that it qualifies for the data center exemption. RCW 82.08.986(3)(a) 4 requires qualifying tenants to meet certain criteria with regard to new employment in order to qualify for the exemption, and states: (3)(a) Within six years of the date that the department issued an exemption certificate under this section to a qualifying business or a qualifying tenant with respect to an eligible computer data center, the qualifying business or qualifying tenant must establish that net employment at the eligible computer data center has increased by a minimum of: (i) Thirty-five family wage employment positions; or (ii) Three family wage employment positions for each twenty thousand square feet of space or less that is newly dedicated to housing working servers at the eligible computer data center. For qualifying tenants, the number of family wage employment positions that must be increased under this subsection (3)(a)(ii) is based only on the space occupied by the qualifying tenant in the eligible computer data center. (Emphasis added.) Thus, as indicated above, because Taxpayer leased approximately . . . square feet, it was required to show that net employment at the Data Center increased by a minimum of six “family wage employment positions.” Id. RCW 82.08.986(3)(c)(i) defines “family wage employment positions” as:
[N]ew permanent employment positions requiring forty hours of weekly work, or their equivalent, on a full-time basis at the eligible computer data center and receiving a wage equivalent to or greater than one hundred fifty percent of the per capita personal income of the county in which the qualified project is located. An employment position may not be counted as a family wage employment position unless the employment position is entitled to health insurance coverage provided by the employer of the employment position. For purposes of this subsection (3)(c), “new permanent employment position” means an employment position that did not exist or that had not previously been filled as of the date We note that Taxpayer has made arguments that certain independent contractors should be counted in its total of new permanent employee positions. However, RCW 82.0[8].986(3)(c)(ii)(B) only allows this for contractors hired by the owner of the data center, not those hired by tenants. Also, Taxpayer has argued that certain temporary workers be included, but such employees’ positions do not qualify because they are not “new permanent employ[ment] positions” as required by RCW 82.08.986(3)(c)(i). 4

Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (June 9, 2026)

77

that the department issued an exemption certificate to the owner or qualifying tenant of an eligible computer data center, as the case may be. . . . (Emphasis added.) Here, Audit concluded that Taxpayer had four qualifying employ[ment] positions in 2015 and in 2016, but disallowed those of Employee A and Employee B. Thus, as we mention above, the issue here turns on whether . . . [Employee A] and Employee B meet the statute’s employment requirements in 2015 or 2016, and in so doing, bring the number of net new permanent employment positions to the required minimum of six. Employee A The goal of statutory interpretation is to carry out the intent of the legislature. Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass’n, 169 Wn.2d 516, 526, 243 P.3d 1283 (2010). Statutory interpretation begins with the statute’s plain meaning. Id. “The ‘plain meaning’ of a statutory provision is to be discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, as well as from the context of the statute in which that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole.” State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600, 115 P.3d 281 (2005) (citing Wash. Pub. Ports Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue, 148 Wn.2d 637, 645, 62 P.3d 462 (2003); Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 10-11, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). Here, the statute is clear on its face when it defines a “new permanent employment position” as “an employment position that did not exist or that had not previously been filled as of the date that the department issued an exemption certificate.” RCW 82.08.986(3)(c) (emphasis added). Taxpayer indicates in its May 2019 Memo that prior to the issuance of the Exemption Certificate, it intended to create a permanent position for Employee A to fill. Specifically, Taxpayer says that in the early fall of 2010, prior to . . . [the Exemption Certificate issue date], “[Employee A] was dual-hatted at this time: He was charged with running a [. . .] data center facility . . . [out-of-state] while also bearing the responsibility of visiting [Washington] as [Taxpayer’s] lead data center engineer to be eventually assigned to [the Data Center’s location in Washington].” May 2019 Memo, at 1 [(emphasis added)]. Also, Taxpayer’s employee portal indicates that Employee A was associated with [the Data Center’s location in Washington] . . . [prior to the Exemption Certificate issue date]. 5
....
Therefore, Employee A’s position was not one “that did not exist or that had not previously been filled as of the date that the department issued an exemption certificate.” RCW 82.08.986(3)(c). As such, Employee A’s position does not qualify under the plain language of the statute, and cannot be included in the calculation under RCW 82.08.986(3)(a) and (b) of net employment for any of the years, 2010 through 2016.

Taxpayer argues that Employee A’s tax withholdings were changed from . . . [out-of-state] to Washington on . . . , three days after the Exemption Certificate was issued, which it argues means that Employee A became a permanent employee after the certificate’s issue date. However, although reflective of a payroll change, it does not indicate whether the job itself was “permanent” in the sense in which this term is used in RCW 82.08.986(3)(c). 5

Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (June 9, 2026)

78

Taxpayer argues that no positions, including Employee A’s, could have been new “permanent” employment positions prior to the date it entered into a lease with the building owner, 6 or received a certificate of occupancy, both of which it says occurred after the Exemption Certificate was issued, because there was no certain place in which the employees could work. However, the word “permanent” is not used in isolation in RCW 82.08.986(3)(c), but is instead used as part of a defined phrase: “new permanent employment position.” The term as used in the definition refers to the quality of the positions to be filled—that is, they are not short-term and impermanent positions as opposed to the permanent, “long-term jobs that provide living wages” first contemplated by the Legislature in Laws of 2010, 1st sp. sess., ch. 1, § 1. The statute does not require the employment to begin at a time certain after the certificate is issued in order to be a “new permanent employment position” under RCW 82.08.986(3)(c). It only requires that the position does not exist or not be filled before the exemption certificate is issued, and that it meet certain hourly and wage minimums and other criteria within the six-year statutory period. Employee B RCW 82.08.986 has no duration of employment requirement, and does not mandate that an employee must work for the entirety of the six-year statutory period in order for the position to qualify and be included in the calculation of net new permanent employee positions for purposes of RCW 82.08.986(3)(a)(ii). The statute only requires the certificate holder to show that the employee is filling a full-time position, and that the position meets the wage minimum threshold and other statutory criteria at some point in the six-year period after the certificate was issued. Although in part of 2015 and 2016, Employee B was on disability pay, his position was still considered a full-time position on Taxpayer’s employee rolls, and it met the statutory criteria in other years. Therefore, Employee B’s position should be included in the calculation of net new permanent employ[ment] positions over the six-year period for purposes of RCW 82.08.986(3)(a)(ii). Because we resolve this issue on other grounds, we need not address the topic of disability pay raised by Audit and Taxpayer. Although we conclude that Employee B’s position meets the employment requirements for the sales tax exemption in RCW 82.08.986, Employee A’s position does not, and thus Taxpayer has not shown that it achieved a net of at least six new permanent employment positions during the six-year audit period for purposes of RCW 82.08.986(3)(a)(ii). For the same reasons, Taxpayer has not met the use tax exemption requirements in RCW 82.12.986. Because Taxpayer has not met We note that in order to be a “qualifying tenant” to whom a certificate can be issued, the plain language of RCW 82.08.986(6)(i) states that the applicant must be “a business entity that exists for the primary purpose of engaging in commercial activity for profit and that leases space from a qualifying business within an eligible computer data center.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, either Taxpayer was not eligible for a data center exemption certificate, or it showed when applying for the certificate that it had at least a substantive pending lease agreement of some kind with the owner of the Data Center building. If the latter, Taxpayer likely had some possessory rights in the Data Center as of the date the Exemption Certificate was issued, at the latest. 6

Det. No. 20-0129, 45 WTD 071 (June 9, 2026)

79

its burden of showing its entitlement to the data center exemptions in RCW 82.08.986 and RCW 82.12.986, we must deny the petition. DECISION AND DISPOSITION Taxpayer's petition is denied. Dated this 7th day of May 2020.