Five-second answer

Claim we investigated

State officials expect I-645 to leave Washington's capital gains tax in place, though its wording raises an untested legal question.

True. The state's fiscal analysis assumes only the 2026 tax is affected, but I-645's 'measured by' wording is untested in court. The state's fiscal impact statement assumes only the 2026 tax is affected, the Attorney General lists it as the only tax repealed, and an independent UW law professor thinks courts would likely keep the capital gains tax, while I-645's ban on taxes 'measured by' income matches the Supreme Court's own description of that tax in Quinn, a question no court has decided.

Quote or cite this fact-check

FactHub rates the claim “State officials expect I-645 to leave Washington's capital gains tax in place, though its wording raises an untested legal question” True (high confidence): The state's fiscal analysis assumes only the 2026 tax is affected, but I-645's 'measured by' wording is untested in court. Reviewed October 21, 2026. https://facthub.org/n/article/i645-capital-gains-tax-risk/3

One-minute summary

What the evidence establishes

  • Established. The state's fiscal impact statement assumes the only tax affected is the 2026 millionaires tax, and the Attorney General says it is the only tax I-645 explicitly repeals.
  • Established. I-645 bans any tax 'measured by an individual's income, regardless of the source' and defines income for all of Title 82 to include gains from capital.
  • Established. The Supreme Court upheld the capital gains tax in 2023 by holding it is an excise 'measured by capital gains', not a tax on them.
  • Established. An independent UW law professor thinks courts would likely keep the tax; he, an independent tax lawyer and the No campaign's lawyers all call the question real or open.
  • Context. No official analysis addresses how far I-645's new ban reaches, and no lawsuit or court ruling exists.
  • Context. A separate case, Petter v. State, challenges the 2026 tax itself; if a court strikes that tax down, the 2026 law voids its tax relief too (Sec. 1202), while repeal through I-645 leaves the relief in place.
  • Not shown. Whether a court would actually strike the capital gains tax under I-645 is not known.
Important context: Washington's capital gains tax (chapter 82.87 RCW), upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2023 and kept by voters in 2024, raised between $394.7 million and more than $1.5 billion a year in tax years 2022 to 2025. I-645 lists 66 sections it repeals, all from the 2026 millionaires tax law, and none is the capital gains tax. The question here is whether its separate, broader ban on taxes 'measured by an individual's income' could later be used in court against the capital gains tax. This article does not predict how a court would rule.

The evidence

The conclusion rests on the combined record. Expand each item to see its role and limitations.

Independence note: This check uses 7 methods across 10 institutions and 1 country or international grouping.
Evidence map
Method Institution / country Year(s) What it shows Key limitation Primary links
Reading the state's fiscal impact statement and the Attorney General's explanatory statement Washington Office of Financial Management, Washington Attorney General United States 2026 The Office of Financial Management's fiscal impact statement says the only tax impacted is the 2026 millionaires tax. The Attorney General's explanatory statement says the only tax the measure explicitly lists and repeals is the tax on income over $1 million, and separately describes the new ban on taxes measured by individual income. The fiscal impact statement counts direct effects and states an assumption; the Attorney General's statement describes what the measure explicitly repeals. Neither is a legal opinion on the ban's reach. Washington Office of Financial Management Washington Attorney General
Reading the initiative's complete text Washington Secretary of State United States 2026 Section 2 repeals 66 listed sections, all from the 2026 millionaires tax law; the capital gains tax is not among them. Sections 3 and 4 add a new chapter to Title 82 that defines income as any gain or benefit derived from an individual's capital, labor or property, applies that definition throughout Title 82, and bars any tax on individual income or 'measured by an individual's income, regardless of the source'. Section 6 says the ban is to be liberally construed. Text alone does not settle how a court would apply it; the definitions apply 'unless the context clearly requires otherwise', and the liberal-construction clause speaks of 'any form of individual income tax'. Washington Secretary of State
Reading the 2023 Supreme Court opinion and the statute Washington Supreme Court, Washington State Legislature United States 2021, 2023 The statute imposes an excise on the sale of long-term capital assets that 'equals seven percent multiplied by an individual's Washington capital gains'. In Quinn v. State the court held it is an excise because it is levied on the sale, not on the gains, and said the tax is 'measured by capital gains', adding that it has upheld many excise taxes measured by income. That distinction saved the tax under the constitution, and 'measured by' is the wording I-645 bans. Quinn decided a constitutional question (excise versus property tax); it did not consider a later statute banning taxes measured by income. Washington State Legislature Washington Supreme Court
Published legal analysis and expert comment Pacifica Law Group (for the No campaign), University of Washington School of Law (Hugh Spitzer, emeritus), Carney Badley Spellman (Joe Wallin) United States 2026 The No campaign's lawyers write that because the tax is measured by gain from selling property, 'there is a real question' whether I-645 bars it. Spitzer calls it a 'plausible argument' and a 'legitimate concern', but says the odds are courts would not use the language to block the tax. Wallin, a tax lawyer with no role in either campaign, writes that it is too categorical to say the tax necessarily survives or disappears and that the express repeal list is insufficient to promise it survives. Pacifica wrote for the No campaign. Spitzer's views come from an interview and an op-ed. None is a court ruling, and the experts differ on how likely the tax is to fall. Pacifica Law Group (for Millionaires Tax for WA) The Seattle Times (op-ed by Hugh Spitzer) The Seattle Times The Startup Law Blog (Joe Wallin, Carney Badley Spellman)
Reading Washington case law on implied repeal and the campaigns' statements of intent Washington Supreme Court, Let's Go Washington United States 2021, 2026 Washington courts strongly disfavor repeal by implication and find it only where two laws cannot be reconciled. The Yes campaign says the initiative repeals only the income tax and nothing else, and Heywood said it was not designed to touch the capital gains tax. Spitzer reports that one earlier version of the initiative would have repealed the capital gains tax outright, and the version on the ballot does not. Statements of campaign intent carry limited weight with courts, which look first at the text voters approved. Washington Supreme Court The Seattle Times FOX 13 Seattle The Seattle Times (op-ed by Hugh Spitzer)
State tax collection statistics Washington State Department of Revenue United States 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 The capital gains tax collected $782.0 million for tax year 2022, $394.7 million for 2023, $583.8 million for 2024 and more than $1.5 billion in initial collections for 2025. Collections swing widely from year to year and tax year 2025 figures are initial. Washington State Department of Revenue
Reading the 2026 session law and a case tracker for the pending lawsuit Washington State Legislature, Carney Badley Spellman (Joe Wallin) United States 2026, 2027 Petter v. State, No. 26-2-00073-20 in Klickitat County Superior Court, challenges the 2026 tax under the state constitution; the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion is set for February 5, 2027. Section 1202 of the 2026 law says that if a court of final jurisdiction invalidates the tax, most of the law, the relief included, is null and void. I-645 does not repeal Sec. 1202. So the relief stays if voters repeal the tax through I-645, but the 2026 law voids it if a court strikes the tax down. The case status comes from a practicing lawyer's tracker of the court docket, and hearing dates can move. Petter concerns the 2026 tax, not the capital gains tax. The Startup Law Blog (Joe Wallin, Carney Badley Spellman) Washington State Legislature
1. Officials treat only the 2026 tax as affected Reading the state's fiscal impact statement and the Attorney General's explanatory statement

The Office of Financial Management's fiscal impact statement says the only tax impacted is the 2026 millionaires tax. The Attorney General's explanatory statement says the only tax the measure explicitly lists and repeals is the tax on income over $1 million, and separately describes the new ban on taxes measured by individual income.

Limit: The fiscal impact statement counts direct effects and states an assumption; the Attorney General's statement describes what the measure explicitly repeals. Neither is a legal opinion on the ban's reach.

Verify: Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 645 Ballot title and explanatory statement for Initiative IP26-645 (July 23, 2026)

2. What I-645 repeals, and what it bans Reading the initiative's complete text

Section 2 repeals 66 listed sections, all from the 2026 millionaires tax law; the capital gains tax is not among them. Sections 3 and 4 add a new chapter to Title 82 that defines income as any gain or benefit derived from an individual's capital, labor or property, applies that definition throughout Title 82, and bars any tax on individual income or 'measured by an individual's income, regardless of the source'. Section 6 says the ban is to be liberally construed.

Limit: Text alone does not settle how a court would apply it; the definitions apply 'unless the context clearly requires otherwise', and the liberal-construction clause speaks of 'any form of individual income tax'.

Verify: 2026 General Election Voters' Pamphlet (Spokane edition), Initiative Measure No. 645 complete text

3. How the Supreme Court and the statute describe the capital gains tax Reading the 2023 Supreme Court opinion and the statute

The statute imposes an excise on the sale of long-term capital assets that 'equals seven percent multiplied by an individual's Washington capital gains'. In Quinn v. State the court held it is an excise because it is levied on the sale, not on the gains, and said the tax is 'measured by capital gains', adding that it has upheld many excise taxes measured by income. That distinction saved the tax under the constitution, and 'measured by' is the wording I-645 bans.

Limit: Quinn decided a constitutional question (excise versus property tax); it did not consider a later statute banning taxes measured by income.

Verify: RCW 82.87.040: Tax imposed Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023)

5. The strongest reasons the tax would survive Reading Washington case law on implied repeal and the campaigns' statements of intent

Washington courts strongly disfavor repeal by implication and find it only where two laws cannot be reconciled. The Yes campaign says the initiative repeals only the income tax and nothing else, and Heywood said it was not designed to touch the capital gains tax. Spitzer reports that one earlier version of the initiative would have repealed the capital gains tax outright, and the version on the ballot does not.

Limit: Statements of campaign intent carry limited weight with courts, which look first at the text voters approved.

Verify: State v. Peterson, No. 98201-5 (November 18, 2021) Could initiative to kill WA millionaires tax also kill capital gains tax? (June 2026) Opponents file 511K signatures to repeal WA millionaire tax (July 2, 2026) Here's what's hidden in the initiative to repeal the WA millionaires tax (July 9, 2026)

6. What is at stake State tax collection statistics

The capital gains tax collected $782.0 million for tax year 2022, $394.7 million for 2023, $583.8 million for 2024 and more than $1.5 billion in initial collections for 2025.

Limit: Collections swing widely from year to year and tax year 2025 figures are initial.

Verify: Capital gains tax: tax year 2025 initial collections

7. The pending challenge to the 2026 tax, and what a court ruling would do Reading the 2026 session law and a case tracker for the pending lawsuit

Petter v. State, No. 26-2-00073-20 in Klickitat County Superior Court, challenges the 2026 tax under the state constitution; the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion is set for February 5, 2027. Section 1202 of the 2026 law says that if a court of final jurisdiction invalidates the tax, most of the law, the relief included, is null and void. I-645 does not repeal Sec. 1202. So the relief stays if voters repeal the tax through I-645, but the 2026 law voids it if a court strikes the tax down.

Limit: The case status comes from a practicing lawyer's tracker of the court docket, and hearing dates can move. Petter concerns the 2026 tax, not the capital gains tax.

Verify: Initiative 645 tracker ESSB 6346, chapter 238, Laws of 2026 (session law)

Common questions

“Yes campaign: I-645 'repeals only the unconstitutional income tax that the Washington Legislature adopted this past year and nothing else.'”

Short answer: True of its repeals

Accurate about the repeal list: I-645 expressly repeals only the 2026 law. It leaves out that the initiative also adds a new ban whose wording could be used in court against the capital gains tax, which is why a statement of certainty goes too far. We would rate these words Mostly true.

“No side: I-645 would likely repeal the capital gains tax.”

Short answer: Unproven

News reports in June quoted the No campaign's lawyers as saying I-645 would 'likely' repeal the tax. The memo as published says there is 'a real question' and that I-645 'creates uncertainty'. No court has ruled, and the strongest legal precedent on implied repeal points the other way. Claims that it would or likely would kill the tax are Unproven.

“The Supreme Court already said the capital gains tax is an excise, not an income tax, so it is safe.”

Short answer: A strong defense, not decisive

Quinn is the state's best argument, and I-645's liberal-construction clause speaks of 'any form of individual income tax'. But I-645 bans not just income taxes but any tax 'measured by an individual's income', and Quinn's own words are that the tax is 'measured by capital gains'. As Wallin puts it, a constitutional classification does not automatically defeat a separate statutory prohibition.

“Heywood admitted I-645 takes aim at the capital gains tax.”

Short answer: No; that was a typo

A June Seattle Times story first reported that Heywood said in a text that I-645 'does take aim' at the capital gains tax. The paper corrected it: because of a typo, the story had it backwards, and Heywood said I-645 does not take aim at the tax. He told FOX 13 the idea is 'complete malarkey'.

“The state's official analyses say the capital gains tax is safe.”

Short answer: They assume it

The fiscal impact statement assumes the only tax affected is the 2026 millionaires tax, and the Attorney General's statement says what is explicitly repealed. Neither analyzes whether the new ban could be used against other taxes, so they show the official working assumption, not a legal conclusion.

Conclusion

The official expectation is that the capital gains tax survives. I-645's repeal list names only sections of the 2026 millionaires tax law; the state's fiscal impact statement assumes the only tax impacted is that tax; and the Attorney General's explanatory statement says it is the only tax the measure explicitly lists and repeals. Professor Hugh Spitzer of the University of Washington, an independent expert, said 'the odds are the courts would not' use I-645's language to block the capital gains tax. Washington courts strongly disfavor repeal by implication, and I-645's ballot title never mentions capital gains. Those official statements are assumptions and descriptions of the text rather than legal analysis: neither addresses how far I-645's new ban reaches. And that ban is where the untested question lies. I-645 adds to Title 82, the same title that contains the capital gains tax, a prohibition on any tax 'measured by an individual's income, regardless of the source', defines income to include 'any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual's capital', and tells courts to construe the ban liberally. The capital gains statute sets the tax at seven percent of an individual's Washington capital gains, and the Supreme Court upheld it in Quinn v. State by saying the tax 'is not levied on capital gains; rather, it is measured by capital gains.' The distinction that saved the tax under the constitution uses the very wording I-645 would prohibit. Every legal analysis we found, from the No campaign's lawyers to Spitzer and an independent tax lawyer who revised his own earlier view, calls the question real or open, even those who think the tax would likely survive. The claim is therefore rated True with high confidence: both halves, the official expectation and the untested question, rest on the documents themselves. Strong arguments favor the tax surviving: the rule against implied repeal, Quinn's holding that the tax is an excise rather than an income tax (I-645's liberal-construction clause targets 'any form of individual income tax'), and the definitions yielding where 'the context clearly requires otherwise'. Both campaigns have overstated their side. The Yes campaign says I-645 repeals the income tax 'and nothing else', which is accurate about what it repeals but leaves out the risk that the new ban could be used against the capital gains tax; Brian Heywood has said I-645 does not target the tax. News reports in June quoted the No campaign's lawyers as saying I-645 would 'likely' repeal it, but the memo as published says only that there is 'a real question'. A separate court case concerns the 2026 tax itself, not the capital gains tax. Petter v. State, a constitutional challenge in Klickitat County Superior Court, is pending, with a summary judgment hearing set for February 5, 2027. The 2026 law ties its tax relief to that kind of ruling: the relief stays if voters repeal the tax through I-645, but the 2026 law voids it if a court strikes the tax down (Sec. 1202), a clause I-645 leaves in place. What remains unknown is the outcome of the capital gains question: no lawsuit has been filed on it, no court has ruled, and it could not be tested unless I-645 passes and someone challenges the tax.

How we checked

  1. Defined the claim as two parts: state officials expect the capital gains tax to stay in place under I-645, and I-645's wording raises a legal question about it that no court has decided.
  2. Read I-645's complete text, the capital gains statute (RCW 82.87.040) and the Supreme Court's 2023 Quinn opinion, and compared their wording.
  3. Read the state's fiscal impact statement and the Attorney General's explanatory statement for what they assume and what they analyze.
  4. Read the No campaign's legal memo, an independent law professor's interview and op-ed, and an independent tax lawyer's analysis.
  5. Read Washington case law on repeal by implication, and the campaigns' statements of intent, checking a reported quote against the newspaper's correction.
  6. Searched for any lawsuit, court ruling or Attorney General opinion on the question and found none.

Editorial note: Scope: whether I-645's text creates legal risk for the capital gains tax, and how each side has described that risk. The article does not predict a court ruling, rate the capital gains tax as policy, or address payroll taxes, which raise a similar but separate question. It is one of a set of FactHub articles that check claims from both I-645 campaigns with the same rules. No lawyer reviewed this article; it is not legal advice.

Expert-review status

No external specialist review has been recorded.

Funding and conflicts

Funding: No external funding for this piece.

Ownership: Published by the FactHub Research Team.

Conflicts: None known.

Sources

Sources are labeled by kind, with what this fact check takes from each, so readers can check the evidence independently.

  1. Government Washington Secretary of State. 2026 General Election Voters' Pamphlet (Spokane edition), Initiative Measure No. 645 complete text

    The official voters' pamphlet, which prints the complete text of I-645 in searchable form.

    Reliability: The initiative text was written by its sponsors; the Secretary of State prints it as filed.

    • I-645 defines income for all of Title 82 as any gain or benefit derived from an individual's capital, labor, property or other source.

      What the source says
      "Income" means any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual's capital, labor, property, or other source.
      Complete text of I-645, Sec. 3

    • I-645 bars any tax on individual income or measured by an individual's income.

      What the source says
      No tax may be imposed on individual income, the receipt of individual income, or measured by an individual's income, regardless of the source.
      Complete text of I-645, Sec. 4(1)

    • The ban is to be construed liberally, against any form of individual income tax.

      What the source says
      Sections 3 and 4 of this act are to be liberally construed to prohibit any form of individual income tax.
      Complete text of I-645, Sec. 6
  2. Government Washington State Legislature. RCW 82.87.040: Tax imposed

    The section of the Revised Code of Washington that imposes the capital gains tax.

    Reliability: The official code.

    • The capital gains tax is an excise on sales of long-term capital assets, calculated as 7% of an individual's Washington capital gains.

      What the source says
      Only individuals are subject to payment of the tax, which equals seven percent multiplied by an individual's Washington capital gains.
      Subsection (1)(a)
  3. Government Washington Supreme Court. Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023) Identifier: 1 Wn.3d 453 (2023)

    The opinion upholding the capital gains tax as an excise tax.

    Reliability: The state's highest court; the opinion is binding on the constitutional question it decided.

    • Qualifies: The court held the tax is an excise because it is levied on the sale or exchange of capital assets, not on the gains themselves.

      What the source says
      The capital gains tax is appropriately characterized as an excise because it is levied on the sale or exchange of capital assets, not on capital assets or gains themselves.
      Introduction

    • The court described the tax as measured by capital gains, and said excise taxes may be measured by income.

      What the source says
      The tax is not levied on capital gains; rather, it is measured by capital gains.
      Analysis, excise discussion
  4. Government Washington Office of Financial Management. Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 645

    The state's official estimate of I-645's fiscal effects, printed in the voters' pamphlet.

    Reliability: Prepared by the state budget office under statute; it counts direct impacts and states its assumptions.

    • Qualifies: The fiscal impact statement assumes the only tax affected is the 2026 millionaires tax.

      What the source says
      The only tax impacted is the tax described in ESSB 6346 from the 2026 Legislative Session.
      Assumptions
  5. Government Washington Attorney General. Ballot title and explanatory statement for Initiative IP26-645 (July 23, 2026)

    The Attorney General's official explanation of I-645's effect, printed in the voters' pamphlet.

    Reliability: Written under RCW 29A.32.070. The Attorney General's office defended the capital gains tax in Quinn.

    • Qualifies: The only tax I-645 explicitly lists and repeals is the tax on income over $1 million; the statement also describes the new ban on taxes measured by income.

      What the source says
      The measure would also prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income and taxes measured by an individual's income. The only tax explicitly listed and repealed by the measure is the tax on income over $1,000,000.
      The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved
  6. Party to the dispute Pacifica Law Group (for Millionaires Tax for WA). Memorandum on the effects of Initiative IP26-645 (posted July 2026)

    Legal memo prepared for the campaign opposing I-645, posted by the Northwest Progressive Institute.

    Reliability: Has a stake in this finding. Written for the No campaign, which benefits if voters see broader risks. News reports in June quoted stronger wording ('likely') than this posted version.

    • The No campaign's lawyers say there is a real question whether the tax falls within the ban, not that it would certainly fall.

      What the source says
      Because the Capital Gains Tax is measured by the "gain" from the sale of certain "property," there is a real question whether the tax falls within I-645's prohibition.
      Summary, second bullet
  7. Academic The Seattle Times (op-ed by Hugh Spitzer). Here's what's hidden in the initiative to repeal the WA millionaires tax (July 9, 2026)

    An opinion piece by Hugh Spitzer, emeritus professor at the University of Washington School of Law and an expert on the state constitution and tax law.

    Reliability: An independent legal scholar writing an opinion column; he has no role in either campaign.

    • Spitzer calls it a plausible argument that the capital gains tax is a tax measured by an individual's income.

      What the source says
      plausible argument that the levy on capital gains…from the sale of securities is also a tax “measured by an individual’s income.”
      Body · Hugh Spitzer, UW law professor emeritus

    • Qualifies: One earlier version of the initiative would have repealed the capital gains tax outright; the ballot version does not.

      What the source says
      One version would have repealed the state capital gains tax
      Body · Hugh Spitzer, UW law professor emeritus
  8. News report The Seattle Times. Could initiative to kill WA millionaires tax also kill capital gains tax? (June 2026)

    A news report by Jim Brunner on the question, with comment from both campaigns and Hugh Spitzer, and a later correction.

    Reliability: A news story; its editorial board separately opposes I-645. The story carries a correction about Heywood's text message.

    • Qualifies: Spitzer sees a legitimate concern but thinks courts would likely not use the language to block the tax.

      What the source says
      “The odds are the courts would not use this language as a basis for blocking those other taxes”
      Body · Hugh Spitzer, UW law professor emeritus

    • Qualifies: The Yes campaign says I-645 repeals only the 2026 income tax and nothing else.

      What the source says
      The Repeal the Income Tax Initiative repeals only the unconstitutional income tax that the Washington Legislature adopted this past year and nothing else,
      Body · Hallie Herzberg, spokesperson, Let's Go Washington

    • Qualifies: The paper corrected a typo: Heywood said I-645 does not take aim at the capital gains tax.

      What the source says
      Correction: Brian Heywood said in a text message last month that I-645 does not take aim at the capital gains tax.
      Correction at end of story
  9. News report FOX 13 Seattle. Opponents file 511K signatures to repeal WA millionaire tax (July 2, 2026)

    A news report including an interview with Brian Heywood about the capital gains question.

    Reliability: A local TV news report quoting the initiative's main funder.

    • Qualifies: Heywood says the initiative was not designed to affect the capital gains tax.

      What the source says
      It wasn't designed to do that. This is not a sneaky backdoor tactic or anything.
      Body · Brian Heywood, founder of Let's Go Washington
  10. Other The Startup Law Blog (Joe Wallin, Carney Badley Spellman). IP26-645 and Washington's capital gains tax (July 17, 2026, revised September 9, 2026)

    An analysis by a Seattle business and tax lawyer of whether I-645 affects the capital gains tax.

    Reliability: A practicing lawyer's blog with no role in either campaign; the author revised the piece from an earlier, more confident 'No' to an open question.

    • An independent tax lawyer says it is too categorical to say the tax necessarily survives or necessarily disappears.

      What the source says
      It is too categorical to say the capital gains tax necessarily survives unchanged—or necessarily disappears—if the initiative passes.
      Summary

    • The express repeal list is meaningful evidence but not enough to promise the tax survives.

      What the source says
      My assessment is that the express repeal list is meaningful evidence, but it is insufficient to promise that the capital gains tax survives unchanged.
      Assessment
  11. Government Washington Supreme Court. State v. Peterson, No. 98201-5 (November 18, 2021)

    A Washington Supreme Court opinion restating the rule against repeal by implication.

    Reliability: Binding precedent on statutory interpretation; it concerns drug sentencing, not taxes.

    • Qualifies: Washington courts strongly disfavor repeal by implication, which favors the tax surviving.

      What the source says
      Repeal by implication is strongly disfavored.
      Analysis
  12. Government Washington State Department of Revenue. Capital gains tax: tax year 2025 initial collections

    The department's report of capital gains tax collections by tax year.

    Reliability: Official collection figures; the latest year is initial.

    • Qualifies: Collections were $782.0 million (2022), $394.7 million (2023), $583.8 million (2024) and more than $1.5 billion (2025, initial).

      What the source says
      2025 - $1.5 billion, 9,050 net payments
      Collections by tax year
  13. Government Washington State Legislature. ESSB 6346, chapter 238, Laws of 2026 (session law)

    The enacted 2026 law that created the income tax and the tax relief.

    Reliability: The official session law as passed and signed.

    • Qualifies: If a court of final jurisdiction invalidates the tax, the law voids most of its sections, the relief included; I-645 does not repeal this clause.

      What the source says
      If a court of final jurisdiction invalidates section 201 of this act, sections 1 through 1003 and 1201 through 1209 of this act are null and void in its entirety.
      Sec. 1202, p. 107
  14. Other The Startup Law Blog (Joe Wallin, Carney Badley Spellman). Initiative 645 tracker

    A Seattle tax lawyer's running tracker of I-645 and related litigation, citing the court dockets.

    Reliability: A practicing lawyer's blog with no role in either campaign; it links the Klickitat County case-information page.

    • Qualifies: Petter v. State, the constitutional challenge to the 2026 tax, is pending, with summary judgment set for February 5, 2027.

      What the source says
      summary judgment is set for February 5, 2027, after the election, before Judge Randall C. Krog.
      Litigation section, Petter v. State

Update history

  1. Reframed the rated claim to lead with the state's official expectation that the capital gains tax stays in place, with the untested legal question; rating unchanged (True). Corrected the summary: Quinn and I-645 share the 'measured by' wording, while the statute sets the tax at seven percent of gains (First Look feedback). Updated the ownership disclosure. Removed a link to a companion draft, to be restored when the companion set is final.
  2. Added the pending Petter v. State challenge to the 2026 tax and the 2026 law's null-and-void clause (Sec. 1202): the relief stays if voters repeal the tax through I-645, but the law voids it if a court strikes the tax down.
  3. Initial version.

Cited by

Version details

The exact citing versions, and the version of this article each cites.

  • Briefing wa-i-645 — version 6 (published) cites version 3
  • Briefing wa-i-645 — version 4 (published) cites version 3

For search, research, and AI systems

Machine-readable fact-check

This page includes standardized ClaimReview metadata describing the exact claim, FactHub's finding, publisher, and review dates. You can inspect the record below and confirm that it matches the article you just read.

View ClaimReview JSON 
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"ClaimReview","url":"https://facthub.org/n/article/i645-capital-gains-tax-risk/3","datePublished":"2026-10-21","dateModified":"2026-10-21","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"FactHub","url":"https://facthub.org/"},"claimReviewed":"State officials expect I-645 to leave Washington\u0027s capital gains tax in place, though its wording raises an untested legal question.","reviewRating":{"@type":"Rating","alternateName":"True"},"image":"https://facthub.org/node-assets-v2/article/i645-capital-gains-tax-risk/3/temple-of-justice/social-1200x630.jpg"}

This metadata helps machines discover the fact-check. It does not prove the conclusion or guarantee special treatment by a search engine.

Challenge this fact-check

Every source above is linked so you can check it yourself. Identify the specific conclusion you dispute and provide verifiable evidence that could change it. Credible challenges deserve review and a visible response.

Submit evidence Send general feedback instead

Technical details: node handle article:i645-capital-gains-tax-risk:3