Washington has no state income tax because the Washington Supreme Court ruled in 1933 that income counts as “property” under the state constitution, and the constitution’s uniformity clause requires all property to be taxed at a single flat rate capped at one percent. That decision, Culliton v. Chase, has never been overturned, and voters have rejected every proposal to amend the constitution around it. The result is that a graduated income tax is unconstitutional in Washington, and even a flat income tax would raise so little revenue under the one-percent cap that no serious version has advanced.
The 1933 Ruling That Set the Rule
In November 1932, Washington voters approved Initiative 69 by more than a two-to-one margin, adopting a graduated personal and corporate income tax with rates from one to seven percent to fund public schools.1Washington Secretary of State. Income Tax Ballot Measures A taxpayer named William M. Culliton sued to block the State Tax Commission from collecting it.2CaseMine. Culliton v. Chase, No. 24491 On September 8, 1933, the Washington Supreme Court struck the tax down in a five-to-four decision.
The central question was whether income counted as property. The majority said it did. The court pointed to the constitutional definition of property as “everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership,” and concluded that income, as something a person receives and owns, fits within that definition.3vLex United States. Culliton v. Chase 174 Wash. 363 25 P.2d 81 Once income was classified alongside land and personal belongings, any tax on it had to follow the same constitutional rules that govern property taxes.
The court struck down income tax laws again in Jensen v. Henneford in 1936 and Power Inc. v. Huntley in 1951, each time relying on the same reasoning. The Washington Attorney General’s office has noted that although the legal basis for Culliton has been questioned over the decades, the ruling has never been overturned.4Washington State Office of the Attorney General. Constitutionality of Income Tax
The Uniformity Clause and the One Percent Cap
Two provisions of Article VII of the Washington Constitution do the actual work of blocking an income tax. Amendment 14, ratified in 1930, requires taxes to be uniform on the same class of property within the taxing jurisdiction. Article VII, Section 2 caps the aggregate of all state and local property tax levies at one percent of a property’s true and fair value in any year.5Washington State Legislature. Washington State Constitution – Amendment 14, Art. 7 Section 1
Together these create a double bind for any income tax. Uniformity kills graduated brackets: a tax that charges one percent on lower earnings and seven percent on higher earnings treats the same class of property differently depending on how much someone has, which the constitution forbids. And the one-percent cap limits the rate of any flat tax that might survive uniformity. The court in Culliton did not decide the case on a technicality. It was a structural finding that graduated rates and the uniformity clause cannot coexist as long as income counts as property.6Washington State Department of Revenue. Chapter 5 – Principal Constraints
Why a Flat Income Tax Isn’t a Real Option Either
The obvious follow-up: if graduated rates are the problem, could Washington adopt a flat income tax? Legally, yes. Practically, no. A Washington Department of Revenue analysis concluded that under the current constitutional framework, the state could only impose a flat tax on gross income at a rate no higher than one percent.7Washington State Department of Revenue. Appendix B – Income Tax Constitutional Issues
Several constraints stack on top of each other. The one percent would count against the aggregate levy cap already shared with state and local property taxes. Deductions would be off the table, because allowing them for some taxpayers and not others would reintroduce the uniformity problem. The tax would have to hit gross income, not net. At those limits, the revenue is too small to justify the administrative and political cost, which is why no serious flat income tax proposal has moved forward.
Voters Keep Saying No
Washington voters have been asked eleven times whether to adopt a personal or corporate income tax. Only the 1932 vote succeeded, and the court struck that one down. Every attempt since has failed at the ballot box.1Washington Secretary of State. Income Tax Ballot Measures
Constitutional amendments in 1934, 1936, 1938, and 1942 all failed. Statutory initiatives in 1944, 1970, 1973, 1975, and 1982 followed the same pattern. The most recent attempt, Initiative 1098 in 2010, proposed taxing only high earners and still lost, drawing just 36 percent support.1Washington Secretary of State. Income Tax Ballot Measures The constitutional obstacle survives partly because voters have never agreed to remove it.
The One Crack in the Wall: The Capital Gains Tax
In 2021, the legislature passed a tax on long-term capital gains above $250,000. Opponents challenged it as an unconstitutional income tax, and in March 2023 the Washington Supreme Court upheld it in Quinn v. State. The court did not revisit whether income is property. Instead, it ruled that the capital gains tax is an excise tax, not a property tax, because it is levied on the act of selling or exchanging capital assets rather than on the assets themselves.8Washington Courts. Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8
The distinction is technical but consequential. Property taxes fall on things a person owns because they own them. Excise taxes fall on activities a person chooses to engage in. Because the capital gains tax triggers only on a sale, the court treated it as a tax on the transaction, and the uniformity clause and one-percent cap did not apply. The current rate is seven percent on the first million dollars of taxable Washington capital gains, with a 2.9 percent surtax on amounts above one million, for a top rate of 9.9 percent.9Washington Department of Revenue. New Tiered Rates for Washingtons Capital Gains Tax
Quinn opened a door Culliton had appeared to seal shut: the legislature can tax economic activity connected to wealth if it structures the tax as an excise on a transaction rather than a direct levy on earnings.
What Would Have to Change
Two paths could remove the barrier. The courts could reverse Culliton, but the Quinn decision declined to do so, choosing to classify the capital gains tax differently rather than revisit the property question. The cleaner path is a constitutional amendment. Under Article XXIII, an amendment must pass both chambers of the legislature by a two-thirds vote and then win a majority of voters at the next general election.10Washington State Legislature. Washington State Constitution – Article XXIII Section 1 Given ten straight voter rejections since 1933, the ballot step is the harder half.
Where Things Stand in 2026
The debate has shifted again. In March 2026, the Washington Legislature passed Senate Bill 6346, imposing a 9.9 percent tax on household income above one million dollars beginning in 2028. A ballot initiative to repeal the law is already moving, so voters will likely decide whether this attempt survives politically. How the courts would evaluate SB 6346 under the Culliton framework is an open question, especially given the Quinn court’s willingness to classify taxes on economic activity as excise taxes rather than property taxes.
Culliton v. Chase was decided by a single vote more than ninety years ago. Quinn and the capital gains tax have narrowed its reach, and SB 6346 tests it directly. But the constitutional provisions the 1933 court relied on are still in place, and until either the court or the voters change that, Washington will remain a state without a general income tax.