Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Did Senvita Minerals qualify as feed rather than a drug, antibiotic, or vitamin?

Short answer Yes. California treated it as feed based on its contents, the manufacturer's directions, and the Agriculture Department's product assessment.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 110.1160
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1957-05-08
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A Board tax administrator asking whether Senvita Minerals qualified as feed
Topics
animal feed agriculture department product classification
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1957. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1957
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 May 8, 1957, published by CDTFA as support for a sales and use tax annotation. Its classification depends on the product contents, manufacturer directions, and Agriculture Department assessment described at that time. Another taxpayer should not treat it as binding and should check current Senvita Minerals, mineral-supplement, feed, drug, antibiotic, vitamin, product-classification, 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

Senvita Minerals qualified as feed based on its contents and the manufacturer's feeding directions. The California Department of Agriculture told the Board that, although the product was not registered with the department, its contents indicated it would be regarded as feed.

The fact that the product was normally mixed with ground feed did not by itself make it a drug or antibiotic. Counsel also did not regard it as a drug, antibiotic, or vitamin under the described directions.

Citations and references

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

Source

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

110.1160

To:

Fresno – Tax Administrator

From:

Headquarters – Sales Tax Counsel (EHS:JJD)

Subject:

H--- B--XXX --- Street
---, California

Date:

Sacramento
May 8, 1957

Account No. D-XXXXX

Following your request of April 29 for a ruling on the application of the tax to the product “Senvita Minerals”, we contacted the Department of Agriculture and were informed that although the product is not registered with them, the contents indicate that it would be regarded by them as a feed. It is our opinion that the product would also qualify as a feed under our law. The fact that it is normally mixed with other materials such as ground feeds would not necessarily mean that it is drug or anti-biotic. We do not feel that it is used as a drug, anti-biotic or vitamin because of the fact that from the feeding directions contained on the manufacturer’s advertisement there is an indication that the product may be fed directly to animals with only a small amount of sale being added.

E. H. Stetson
JJD:tl

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1957. 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