Which named supplements were animal feed, and which products were taxable drugs?

Short answer APF 5, APF-1G, Fortafeed, Choline Chloride, Niacin, Calcium Pantothenate, and Parvo were feed; Megasul and Enheptin were drugs.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 110.0380
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1951-12-07
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A Board official asking how to classify named vitamin supplements and drugs sold for animal feed use

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1951. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1951
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 an internal California State Board of Equalization legal memorandum dated December 7, 1951, separately published by CDTFA as support for Annotation 110.0380. The official annotation title says 'APS #5,' while the source itself says 'APF #5'; this page preserves that discrepancy. It is the same correspondence supporting Annotation 110.1280. Another taxpayer should not treat it as binding and should check current feed-supplement, vitamin, veterinary-drug, product-name, exemption, 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

APF 5, APF-1G, Fortafeed, Choline Chloride, Niacin, Calcium Pantothenate, and Parvo qualified as animal feed because they were mixed into feed to supply normal nutritional needs. Megasul and Enheptin were taxable drugs.

The official annotation title uses “APS #5,” but the published source identifies the product as “APF #5.” This page does not silently choose one name over the other.

This PDF is a separately indexed copy of the same correspondence supporting Annotation 110.1280. That annotation states the general vitamin-versus-drug test; this page preserves Annotation 110.0380's named-product focus.

Citations and references

  • California State Board of Equalization Ruling 47 (as cited)

Source

Original ruling text

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

110.0380
Sacramento, California
December 7, 1951

To:

Mr. Burnett Sheehan (ESA:CJMcB)

From:

R. G. Hamlin

Re:

W. W. G--- & W. C. L--XXX --- ----- ---, California

Account No. -- - XXXXX

This is in answer to your memorandum of April 11 with respect to the status of animal feeds of products known as APF #5, APF-1G, Fortafeeds, Choline Chloride, Niacin, Calcium Pantothenate, Parvo, Megasul and Enheptin, which are sold by the above-named taxpayer. The Department of Agriculture advises us that APF 5, APF-1G, Fortafeed, Choline Chloride, Niacin, Calcium Pantothenate, and Parvo are each regarded as a vitamin product or as a vitamin supplement. These products are sold for the purpose of and in a form for mixing with animal and poultry feeds. Each of these products supplies a nutrient designed to meet the dietary requirements of the animal life to be fed. It is our opinion that vitamins sold for the purpose of and in a form to supply the normal nutritional requirements of animal life constitute animals feeds, within the meaning of Ruling 47. Where, however, the vitamins are sold for use as and in the form of a dosage for the prupose of overcoing a specific deficiency, it is our opinion that they are to be regarded as drugs. This appears to conform with the classification of such product by the Department of Agriculture. As each of the above products is sold in a form for mixing with other feeds for the purpose of supplying the normal nutritional requirements of the animal life to be fed, we have concluded that each of these products constitutes an animal feed, within the meaning of Ruling 47. Megasul and Enheptin are classified as drugs, the retail sale of which is subject to tax. As you requested, we are returning the bulk price list enclosed with your memorandum.

RGH:ja

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1951. 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