Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Did Swift's Mineral Supplement qualify as animal feed?

Short answer Yes. California relied on the Agriculture Department's classification and exempted sales for qualifying food animals or animals sold in business.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 110.1220
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1950-03-29
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A Board official asking whether Swift's Mineral Supplement was animal feed
Topics
animal feed agriculture department food animals
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1950. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1950
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 March 29, 1950, published by CDTFA as support for a sales and use tax annotation. The official annotation metadata gives March 20, but the supporting memorandum itself is dated March 29, which controls this page. Another taxpayer should not treat it as binding and should check current Swift's Mineral Supplement, mineral-supplement, animal-feed, food-animal, animal-for-sale, 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

Swift's Mineral Supplement qualified as animal feed based on the California Department of Agriculture's classification.

Its sale was exempt when used to feed animals whose products ordinarily constituted human food or animals sold in the regular course of business.

Citations and references

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

Source

Original ruling text

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

110.1220
Sacramento
March 29, 1950

To:

Mr. W. S. Freeland

From:

R. G. Hamlin

Re:

G--- A. C--dba C--- V--- S--XXX --- -----, California

Account D-XXXXX

We regret to advise you that your memorandum of December 7, with respect to the classification of “Swifts Mineral Supplement” as a feed, was inadvertently filed without being answered. The Department of Agriculture advises us that this product is regarded as an animal feed. Therefore, the tax will not apply to its sale for use in feeding any form of animal life of a kind the products of which ordinarily constitute food for human consumption or are to be sold in the regular course of business.

RGH:HB

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1950. 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