Was a temporary county-fair exhibit an improvement to realty, and which labor charges were excluded?

Short answer It was taxable tangible personal property, not a realty improvement. Only separately stated actual installation was excluded; design and assembly remained taxable.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 190.1060
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1950-04-17
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Mr. Wm. R. Thomson

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 April 17, 1950 internal memorandum relies on the taxpayer's letter and photographs of a particular temporary Los Angeles County Fair exhibit and assumes title to all furnished property passed to the customer. Modern exhibit rentals, retained-title arrangements, digital components, fabrication, and installation charges require separate analysis.
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

The temporary fair exhibit was not an improvement to realty. Because title to all tangible personal property passed to the customer, the transaction was a taxable sale.

The sales price was the seller's full charge less separately stated actual installation. Design, construction, and assembly were not deductible, because assembly was distinguished from installation.

Common questions

Was the exhibit a construction improvement?

No.

Were assembly charges excluded from taxable gross receipts?

No.

What charge could be excluded?

Separately stated actual installation.

Source

Original ruling text

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

190.1060
Sacramento
April 17, 1950

To:

Mr. Wm. R. Thomson (PER)

From:

R. G. Hamlin

Re:

I--- A---, Inc.
XXXX --- ----- XX, Calif

You have inquired concerning the application of the tax to the design, assembly, and installation of an exhibit at the Los Angeles County Fair by the above firm for the W--- C---. From the information contained in the taxpayer’s letter to your office of October 26, a copy of which was attached to your memorandum, and the photographs of the exhibit, also attached to your memorandum, it is our conclusion that the exhibit does not constitute an improvement to realty. Inasmuch as your memorandum states that title to all of the tangible personal property furnished by the taxpayer passes to the W--- C---, we are of the opinion that the transaction constitutes a taxable sale of tangible personal property and that the sales price thereof is the full amount of the charge by this company to the W--- C---, less separately stated charges for installation. In this respect it is to be noted that charges for assembling the property are to be distinguished from charges for its installation. Only charges for actual installation may be deducted from the gross receipts subject to the tax. We are returning the photographs herewith.

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