Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Did loose-lay wall-to-wall carpet remain real property despite easy removal?

Short answer Yes. Carpet cut to the room and attached with sticky tape was treated consistently with other wall-to-wall carpet as real property, rather than as a removable rug.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 190.2340
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1964-08-24
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
San Jose Auditing
Topics
wall to wall carpet real property rugs floor covering
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1964. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1964
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 August 24, 1964 internal memorandum calls the issue close and adopts a consistency rule for wall-to-wall carpet cut to a room and attached with sticky tape. It distinguishes such carpet from a rug normally removed for cleaning. Modern modular carpet tile, temporary floor coverings, leases, and differently attached products require their own current-law 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

Wall-to-wall carpet remained part of the real property even when attached by sticky tape and readily removable or repositionable.

The carpet was cut to the shape of the room and, unlike a rug, was not expected to be taken up for cleaning. Tax Counsel preferred consistent treatment of all wall-to-wall carpet rather than drawing lines based on how firmly it was attached to the floor or wall.

Common questions

Did easy removal make the carpet personal property?

No.

Why was it different from a rug?

It was room-shaped, attached in place, and not ordinarily removed for cleaning.

Did Tax Counsel consider the issue obvious?

No. The memorandum expressly called it a close question.

Source

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

San Jose - Auditing

From:

Tax Counsel (EHS)

Subject:

“M”

190.2340

August 24, 1964

In reply to your memo of August 17, it seems to us that we should be consistent in regarding wall-to-wall carpet as part of the real property even though the method of attachment may be such that the carpet can readily be removed or changed in its position. It is a very simple matter to remove a door and other parts of the realty. In distinguishing between rugs and wall-to-wall carpet, it seems to me that not only is the loose-lay carpet described by you attached by a sticky tape, but it is presumably cut to the shape of the room and would not be taken up for cleaning as would a rug. The question is close, but it seems to us that there would be more consistency in treating all wall-to-wall carpet alike than to draw a distinction based on the firmness or secureness of the attachment to the flooring or wall.

EHS:fb

[1b]

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1964. 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