Was a right to breed a mare to a particular stallion taxable tangible personal property?

Short answer No. California treated the described breeding share as a contractual breeding right rather than tangible personal property subject to sales tax.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 110.0020
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1962-11-02
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Attorneys asking whether a thoroughbred stallion breeding share was taxable tangible personal property

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1962. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1962
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is a California State Board of Equalization tax-counsel letter dated November 2, 1962, published by CDTFA as support for a sales and use tax annotation. It addresses a breeding share whose sole stated right was one annual breeding of a thoroughbred mare to a named stallion. The source also contains an unexplained sentence about use tax and DMV that is not connected to the described breeding-share facts or conclusion. Another taxpayer should not treat it as binding and should check current breeding-share, stallion-service, intangible-right, tangible-personal-property, and sales-and-use-tax rules. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ruling (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The described breeding share was not tangible personal property and therefore was not subject to sales tax. Its sole stated benefit was the right to have a thoroughbred mare bred to a particular stallion once each breeding season without an additional charge.

The letter distinguished this contractual right from a fractional ownership interest in tangible personal property, which it said generally would be taxable.

The published source includes an unexplained sentence stating that use tax was properly assessed because it was not paid to DMV. No vehicle or DMV facts appear in the letter, and that sentence is not used as a basis for this breeding-share summary.

Citations and references

  • No specific statute or regulation was cited in the published letter.

Source

Original ruling text

110.0020

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

November 2, 1962
“Tangible Personal Property”
Under Sales and Use
Tax Act

W--- & S--Attorneys at Law
XXXX --- Boulevard
--- --- XX, California
Attention:

Mr. M--- E. S---

Gentlemen:
We regret the delay in replying to your letter of September 26. Although sales of fractional interests in tangible personal property are regarded as subject to sales tax, we do not believe that “breeding shares,” as you describe them, constitute tangible personal property for sales tax purposes. Since the use tax was not paid to DMV, the tax was properly assessed in the audit. We reach this conclusion in view of your statement that “a share owner’s sole rights under the agreement generally are to have a thoroughbred mare bred to such stallion once each year during the breeding season without charge.” Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel

EHS:fb
cc:

--- --- (--) – Subdistrict Administrator

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1962. Ezel checks current California tax law against your situation and cites the authority it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace