HB 2347
In CommitteeHouse
Luxury aircraft tax
Reducing the impact of the luxury aircraft tax.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill repeals the luxury aircraft tax, a 1.1% surcharge on aircraft valued over $500,000, eliminating a tax that applied to purchases and use of high-value planes in Washington. The bill also removes related administrative and deposit provisions, effective immediately upon passage.
- Repeals the luxury aircraft tax (RCW 82.48A.010 et seq.), which imposed an additional 1.1% tax on the purchase price or use value of aircraft valued over $500,000.
- Removes the requirement to deposit luxury aircraft tax revenue into a dedicated Aircraft Infrastructure Fund.
- Eliminates administrative rules and reporting requirements specific to the luxury aircraft tax.
- Does not affect other state taxes on aircraft, such as the standard sales and use tax (e.g., RCW 82.08.020), which continue to apply.
Who is affected
- Owners of luxury aircraft — Owners and operators of luxury aircraft (defined as aircraft valued over $500,000) who previously paid an additional state tax on such purchases or use; they will no longer be subject to this tax after the bill takes effect.
- Aircraft dealers and brokers — Aircraft dealers and brokers who handled sales or leases of high-value aircraft and collected the luxury aircraft tax on behalf of the state; they will no longer be required to collect or remit this tax.
- Washington State Department of Revenue — The Washington State Department of Revenue, which administered and collected the luxury aircraft tax; the department will no longer collect this revenue and must update its systems and procedures accordingly.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (3)
Owners of luxury aircraft (typically wealthy individuals or corporations) will no longer pay the 1.1% surcharge on aircraft over $500,000, reducing their compliance and acquisition costs—though this benefit is highly concentrated among the top 0.1% of wealth holders.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 2 repealing RCW 82.48A.010–040Aircraft dealers and brokers will face reduced administrative burden and compliance costs related to collecting and remitting the luxury aircraft tax, potentially improving efficiency in the high-end aviation market.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 2 repealing RCW 82.48A.010–040The bill clarifies personal liability for trust fund taxes in limited liability entities, which may improve tax enforcement consistency—but the changes disproportionately affect small business managers and officers who may lack legal resources to navigate complex liability standards.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 1 amending RCW 82.32.145
Potential Concerns (5)
The state will lose approximately $12 million annually in dedicated revenue, which was earmarked for aircraft infrastructure improvements; this reduction in public revenue may lead to underinvestment in aviation-related infrastructure (e.g., regional airports, runway maintenance) that serve general public and commercial aviation needs.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 2 repealing RCW 82.48A.010–040Local governments that rely on regional airports (e.g., Paine Field, Pasco, Yakima) may face indirect costs if state investment in aviation infrastructure declines, potentially affecting local economic development, emergency response capabilities, and regional connectivity.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 2 repealing RCW 82.48A.010–040While the repeal benefits owners of high-value aircraft, it may distort competition in the aviation sector by giving a tax advantage to ultra-high-net-worth individuals and corporate jet operators over commercial airlines and general aviation users who still pay full sales/use tax on aircraft purchases and fuel.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 2 repealing RCW 82.48A.010–040The bill includes unrelated changes to personal liability for trust fund taxes in limited liability entities, which could increase legal and compliance burdens on small business owners and managers—even though the primary purpose of the bill is aircraft tax repeal—adding complexity without clear public benefit.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 1 amending RCW 82.32.145The $12 million annual revenue loss is not offset by other revenue measures, meaning the state must either cut public services or raise taxes elsewhere—disproportionately affecting lower- and middle-income households who rely most on state-funded services like education, healthcare, and transportation.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 2 repealing RCW 82.48A.010–040
Who Is Most Affected
Ultra-high-net-worth individuals and corporate jet owners—typically CEOs, executives, or business owners with aircraft valued over $500,000—will directly benefit from tax savings, especially those using aircraft for business travel. This group is overwhelmingly concentrated among the top 0.1% of Washington income/wealth.
Aircraft dealers, brokers, and service providers in the high-end aviation market will benefit from reduced administrative obligations and potentially increased sales activity due to lower effective purchase costs for buyers. However, this is a niche sector with limited employment impact statewide.
State and local governments—particularly those managing regional airports—may face reduced infrastructure funding and increased pressure to maintain facilities without the dedicated revenue stream. This could affect public safety, emergency response, and economic development tied to aviation.
Commercial airlines, charter operators, and general aviation users who do not own luxury aircraft face no direct benefit but continue to pay full sales/use tax on aircraft and fuel—potentially distorting market fairness and competitiveness.
Low- and middle-income Washingtonians may indirectly bear the cost of the $12M revenue loss through reduced public services or future tax increases, especially in education, transportation, and healthcare—despite receiving no direct benefit from the repeal.