Did California treat the corporation's 3/4-inch steel strapping as a taxable purchase?

Short answer No. Tax counsel agreed it was a nonreturnable container and processed the state refund claim for that strapping.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 195.1100
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1953-06-18
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Redacted corporation auditor

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 June 18, 1953 letter concludes that the corporation's 3/4-inch steel strapping, as used, was a nonreturnable container but does not describe that use. The annotation index supplies additional pipe-bundling facts that the source letter itself does not verify. The Board did not administer the separate City of Los Angeles tax. Current law controls.
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 agreed that the corporation's 3/4-inch steel strapping, as used, was a nonreturnable container and said it would process the state refund claim for that strapping.

The Board had asked for invoices and bills of lading because it initially thought some 2-inch strapping might have gone to Louisiana, which could have meant no taxable California use. The letter says the claim would instead apply only to the 3/4-inch strapping.

The corporation had also paid City of Los Angeles use tax. The Board said it did not administer that local tax and directed the corporation to ask the city about a refund.

Common questions

Does the source explain the physical use of the 3/4-inch strapping?

No. It states only the conclusion that the strapping, as used, was a nonreturnable container.

Source

Original ruling text

195.1100

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

June 18, 1953

C--- Corporation
Box XXX
---, California
Attention:

Mr. J--- M--Auditor

Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of May 29, 1953, and the enclosures which you sent with it. We agree with you that the 3/4” steel strapping as used by you is a nonreturnable container. The reason that we requested that you send us the invoices and bills of lading covering shipments to C--- P--- Corporation of Louisiana is that we thought some portion of the 2″ strapping was sent to that corporation. If that were so, then there probably would be no taxable use by you in California of that strapping and you would be entitled to a refund for use taxes paid in connection with the amount shipped to Louisiana. Therefore, we will process your claim as applying only to the 3/4" strapping. When we have finished processing your claim, we will return to you the documents which you have submitted. We see by the invoice from S--- S--- S--- Co. that you also paid a City of Los Angeles use tax on this steel strapping. We do not administer the Los Angeles sales and use tax and, therefore, suggest that you write to them to determine whether you are entitled to a refund as to that tax. Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel
JHM:tj
cc:

Long Beach - Auditing

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