Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Did a California place of business need to participate in an interstate sale before the vendor had to collect use tax?

Short answer No. The 1953 letter said maintaining a California place of business triggered collection even if no local office, agent, or representative participated in the sale.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 175.0120
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1953-11-02
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Vendor seeking guidance on interstate sales
Topics
california place of business use tax collection
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1953. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1953
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 November 2, 1953 letter states a broad historical rule in a short response without identifying the underlying transaction or citing a statutory section. It assumes sales tax was inapplicable because the sale was interstate and the property was for California storage, use, or consumption. Business-location facts, seller identity, sale and delivery terms, local participation, later nexus law, and current law control.
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

California staff said a vendor making an interstate sale of tangible property for California storage, use, or consumption had to collect use tax if it maintained a place of business in California.

The collection duty did not depend on participation by that California location. It also did not matter that another local office, agent, or representative of the seller had nothing to do with the sale.

The short 1953 letter did not describe the underlying transaction or identify the statute supporting its rule.

Common questions

Did the California office need to make or solicit the sale?

No.

Why was sales tax not applied?

The letter assumed the sale was interstate.

Did the source identify a specific statutory section?

No.

Citations and references

  • No statute or regulation was cited in the source

Source

Original ruling text

175.0120

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

November 2, 1953
L--- - B--- Company
XXX --- Avenue
--- --- XX, California
Attention:

Mr. E. R. C---

SZ --- XX XXXXXX

Gentlemen:
In answer to the question raised in your letter of September 22, we advise that whenever a vendor sells tangible personal property for storage, use, or other consumption in this State under circumstances rendering the sales tax inapplicable because of the interstate character of the sale, the vendor is required to collect the use tax if he maintains a place of business in this State. It is immaterial that the place of business maintained in this State or any other place of business, agent, or representative of the seller had nothing to do with the sale. Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel

EHS:ph

cc:

San Francisco – Compliance

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1953. 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