Did a yacht broker's sales-tax liability turn on whether the owner gave an open or exclusive listing?

Short answer No. Listing type did not control. Liability depended on whether the broker had beneficial use of the yacht or could vest ownership in a buyer by the broker's own act.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 185.0120
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1953-03-18
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A yacht company business manager asking about broker liability under open and exclusive listings (identity redacted)

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 March 18, 1953 tax-counsel letter states a historical Attorney General test and does not describe a completed transaction. The official source also carries a December 8, 1997 note directing readers to section 6202(b) and (c), so the original date remains 1953 but later law was flagged. Current law and the broker’s actual powers control. 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

A yacht company asked whether a broker's sales-tax liability changed when the vessel owner used an exclusive listing instead of an open listing.

The letter said the label did not control. The relevant questions were whether the broker had the right to beneficial use of the boat or power, by the broker's own act, to vest ownership in another person.

The source cited an Attorney General opinion and a later explanatory letter but did not describe a particular sale or decide that the broker actually possessed either power.

A note added to the official source on December 8, 1997 directed readers to subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 6202. That later note did not change the original March 18, 1953 letter date.

Common questions

Did an exclusive listing automatically make the broker the retailer?

No. The source expressly said open versus exclusive listing did not determine liability.

What did determine liability under the letter's test?

Beneficial use of the yacht or unilateral power to vest ownership in the buyer.

Did the letter decide a specific yacht sale?

No. It stated the governing test in response to a general listing question.

Citations and references

  • California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6202(b) and (c) (later 1997 source note)
  • California Attorney General yacht-broker opinion and follow-up letter (as cited; numbers omitted)

Source

Original ruling text

185.0120

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

March 18, 1953

G--- M--- Company
XXXX --- Boulevard
--- ---, California
Attention:

-- XXXXXX

Mr. R--- J. R---, Jr.
Business Manager

Gentlemen:
This is in answer to your letter of March 11 concerning the liability of a yacht broker for sales tax in connection with the sale of yacht owned by another who gives the broker either an exclusive or an open listing. The liability of the yacht broker does not depend upon whether he holds an exclusive or an open listing. It depends rather upon whether he has the right to beneficial use of the boat or the power by his own act to vest ownership in another. The matter has been the subject of an opinion of the Attorney General and a recent letter from his office concerning the scope of the opinion. Copies of the opinion and letter are enclosed. Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel

EHS:ph
cc:

Los Angeles – Tax Administrator

cc:

Mr. K--- E. M--Y--- and S--- B--- Commissioner
XXX --- Building
--- ---, California

See now, in addition, subdivisions
(b) & (c) of §6202.
DHL 12/8/97

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