Why were imitation lemon and lime juices exempt even though their labels showed they were not actual juice products?

Plain-English summary

The submitted label showed that the product was imitation lemon or lime juice rather than actual juice.

It was not used to make beverages in the way a beverage concentrate would be, and it was not a ready-to-drink product. The fruit-juice-percentage test therefore did not apply.

Counsel instead classified the product as a flavoring used in food, comparable to bitters, vanilla extract, saccharin, sugar, and monosodium glutamate.

On that basis, the imitation lemon and lime products were exempt.

Common questions

Were the products exempt as actual fruit juice?

No. The source expressly treated them as imitation products.

Were they beverage concentrates?

No. Counsel said the beverage-concentrate test did not apply.

What exempt category controlled?

Food flavoring.

Citations and references

• Former California Sales and Use Tax Ruling 52 (as discussed)
• California Sales Tax Bulletin 52-15 (as discussed)
• Hollywood Auditing's April 6, 1964 memorandum requesting an opinion on imitation lemon and lime juices — referenced; not reproduced in the official PDF
• Submitted product label and imitation lemon-or-lime product — classification, non-beverage-concentrate character, non-ready-to-drink character, and flavoring use described; label copy, formula, ingredient specifications, package, sample, invoices, and sales records not reproduced in the official PDF
• Redacted Mr. D's February 9 letter seeking written confirmation of an apparently oral prior ruling — letter and prior ruling referenced; neither reproduced or otherwise identified in the official PDF
• Comparisons to saccharine, accent, “sugar or sale,” “angustura bitters,” vanilla extract, and monosodium glutamate — source-printed terms preserved; no comparison-product records or separate authorities reproduced in the official PDF
• Possible later written confirmation, product sale, audit, assessment, refund claim, appeal, or other agency action — no follow-up or final outcome supplied in the official PDF

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/245-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/245-0620.pdf

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum
To:

Hollywood – Auditing (CWT)

From:

Tax Counsel (RHA)

Subject:

“D”

245.0620
Date:

May 13, 1964

Reference is made to your memo of April 6, 1964, in which you asked for an opinion regarding the classification of imitation lemon and imitation lime juices under Ruling 52. The label you submitted would indicate that the product is not a food product but, as described, an imitation product. Since it is not a product for making beverages as we know beverage concentrates to be, the test under Bulletin 52-15 would not apply. Also, since it is not a ready-to-drink product, the 30 percent natural fruit juice test would not apply. It appears that the product should be classified in the same category as saccharine, accent, sugar or sale in that its use is to flavor food products. Mr. “D” states in his letter of February 9 that he received a ruling on the product in question. Apparently it was oral, since he wants it confirmed in writing. I would say the product is exempt on the same basis that angustura bitters, vanilla extract, saccharine, monosodium glutamate, etc., are exempt.

RHA;dse

[1b]