Was mono-sodium glutamate exempt food when sold as a flavor intensifier?

Plain-English summary

The described mono-sodium glutamate was exempt as a food product for human consumption. The purchaser said it was a taste intensifier added to food so users could perceive flavor more strongly, even though the product had no flavor by itself.

The letter noted that it was sold under several trade names, including “Accent.” Tax counsel contrasted it with Mycoban, a bread preservative that the same response treated as taxable.

The official archive publishes the same complete May 14, 1952 letter for both Annotation 245.0760 and companion Annotation 245.0770. This page isolates the MSG conclusion without implying that the source was a separate letter.

Common questions

Did MSG need to have its own flavor to qualify?

No. The letter expressly said the product had no flavor by itself but still treated it as food for human consumption.

How was the product used?

It was added to food as a taste intensifier.

What happened to Mycoban in the same letter?

The bread preservative was treated as taxable because it did not appear to be a food product.

Citations and references

• California Sales and Use Tax Law — food-for-human-consumption exemption applied without a section number
• Sales and Use Tax Ruling 52 — stated enclosure not reproduced in the official PDF
• Redacted purchasing and stores department's March 21 and May 5 letters asking about Mono-Sodium-Glutamate and Mycoban sales — referenced; not reproduced in the official PDF
• Mono-Sodium-Glutamate marketed under several trade names, including Accent, and Mycoban bread preservative — uses described; formulas, ingredient specifications, trade-name list, labels, samples, tests, invoices, and purchase records not reproduced in the official PDF
• Same complete May 14, 1952 letter separately published by the official archive for companion Annotation 245.0770 concerning Mycoban
• Copy to Wm. R. Thomson and possible later product sale, audit, assessment, refund claim, appeal, or other agency action — copy notation present; no copy, 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/245-0760.pdf

Original ruling text

245.0760

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0001
TELEPHONE (916) 445-6450

May 14, 1952

[C]
Purchasing and Stores Department
XXXX --- ----- --- XX, California
Attention:

Mr. [F], Chief Clerk

Gentlemen:
This is an answer to your letters of March 21 and May 5 concerning the application of sales tax to the sale to you of “Mono-Sodium-Glutamate” and “Mycoban”. You state that Mono-Sodium-Glutamate is a taste intensifier added to food to enable the user to perceive the flavor to a greater degree than possible without it. In itself it has no flavor. It is marketed under several trade names, one of which is “Accent.” Mycoban is said to be a preservative added to bread to inhibit the formation of mold. It is our opinion that Mono-Sodium-Glutamate is a food product for human consumption within the meaning of the Sales and Use Tax Law. Mycoban, however, does not appear to be a food product. Accordingly, sales to you of Mono-Sodium-Glutamate are exempt from sales tax while sales to you of Mycoban are subject to sales tax. For your reference we are enclosing Sales and Use Tax Ruling 52. Very truly yours,

W. W. Mangels
Assistant Counsel
MBH/ja
cc:

Mr. Wm. R. Thomson