Was a gallery the retailer when an owner left a painting there for sale?

Plain-English summary

A painting owner who was not the artist left a work at a gallery for sale. The prospective buyer asked whether the gallery owed sales tax as the retailer.

The letter said physical possession alone was not enough. Drawing on Attorney General Opinion NS-3582, it asked whether the gallery had beneficial use of the painting or power, by its own act, to vest ownership in the buyer.

If the gallery lacked both powers and merely brought buyer and owner together without appearing as seller on the transaction documents, it was an intermediary rather than the retailer. In that event, whether tax applied through the owner depended on whether the owner was engaged in business as a seller.

The source did not decide which facts actually applied to the gallery, so its conclusion remained conditional.

Common questions

Did holding the painting make the gallery the retailer?

No. Possession by itself did not answer the question.

What fact could make the gallery the retailer?

Power to transfer title by its own act, or beneficial use under the historical opinion's test.

If the gallery was only a go-between, was the sale automatically tax-free?

No. The tax question then depended on whether the owner was engaged in business as a seller.

Citations and references

• California Attorney General Opinion NS-3582 (as cited)

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/185-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/185-0040.pdf

Original ruling text

185.0040

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

November 2, 1964
--- --- ----- --- ----- --- --Dear Sir:
This is in reply to your letter of October 27, 1964 concerning the application of sales tax with respect to the sale to you of a painting which has been consigned or left for sale at a gallery by an owner who is not the artist. The Sales Tax Counsel opinion of April 6, 1964, cited in your letter, is based upon Opinion of Attorney General NS-3582, dated August 14, 1941. This opinion held that the yacht broker was not liable for payment of sales tax even though he had a limited right to possession of the yacht, but had neither the right to the beneficial use of the boat nor the power by his own act to vest ownership in another. The opinion held that in the absence of both of these elements, the broker could not be said to transfer title to the purchaser. If the gallery in question does not have either of these powers, it would not be considered a retailer and the tax if applicable would depend upon whether the owner was engaged in business as a seller. The basic consideration is whether the party in physical possession of the property has the power to cause title to be transferred to the buyer or whether the person in possession is merely an intermediary or go-between bringing buyer and seller together, and does not appear as the seller on any documents used in connection with the sale. Enclosed is a copy of the Opinion of Attorney General, NS-3582. Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel

EHS:fb
Enclosure
cc:

San Jose – District Administrator