Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Was a wine-case item exempt when it described the product and bottler but also supplied the consignee address?

Short answer No. California treated it as both a label and a shipping tag, so the bottler used it for a purpose beyond resale and the printer's sale was taxable.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 195.2080
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1955-03-16
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Board Woodland auditing staff
Topics
wine shipping tags dual use printer sales tax
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1955. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1955
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 16, 1955 internal memorandum responds to Woodland Auditing's December 28, 1954 and March 4, 1955 letters and reviews a submitted printed wine-case item; the letters and item are not reproduced in the official PDF. The source prints 'anem' in the consignee sentence, and that defect is preserved verbatim below. The item described the product and bottler but was also the only carton information directing the freight or express company to the consignee. Actual wording, shipping role, other carton markings, later authority, and current law control.
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 printed item attached to a wine case described the product and bottler. It also showed the consignee's name and address and was the only information on the carton telling the freight or express company where to deliver it.

California treated the item as both a product label and a shipping tag. Because the bottler used it for a shipping purpose in addition to resale, the printer made a taxable retail sale.

Common questions

Did the product-description content create an exemption?

No. The additional shipping function prevented full resale treatment.

Citations and references

  • Woodland Auditing's December 28, 1954 and March 4, 1955 letters — submitted the classification question; separate letters not reproduced in the official PDF
  • Submitted printed wine-case item — product, bottler, consignee, and delivery information described; item not reproduced in the official PDF

Source

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

Woodland – Auditing

From:

Headquarters – Sales Tax Counsel (BH)

Subject:

REDACTED TEXT

195.2080

Date:

March 16, 1955

In your letters of December 28, 1954, and March 4, 1955, you submit the question of whether a particular item printed by this taxpayer is an exempt label or a taxable shipping tag. The item is affixed to a case of wine and describes the product and bottler. It also shows the anem and address of the consignee. This designation of the consignee is the only information contained on the carton which shows the freight or express company where the wine is to be delivered. It is our opinion that the item is both a label and a shipping tag. Accordingly, the bottler is using the item for some purpose in addition to resale and the printer makes a taxable retail sale.

Bill Holden
BH:tj

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1955. 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