Did live-in employees under age 62 prevent a senior house from meeting section 6363.6(c)'s exclusive-residence condition?

Plain-English summary

An unidentified requester asked by telephone whether one or more employees under age 62 who resided and ate at a senior house or institution defeated section 6363.6(c). The live annotation describes them as being provided rooms and meals; no separate factual record is supplied.

The employees did not prevent the establishment from serving as a principal residence exclusively for people age 62 or older.

The letter distinguished the qualifying residents from the employees. The senior-residence requirement could still be met, but tax applied to meals sold or consumed by the employees themselves.

The PDF supplies no institution qualification, room-and-board terms, resident or employee evidence, meal records, audit, appeal, or later outcome.

Common questions

Did a live-in employee count as an under-62 resident?

No for the section 6363.6(c) analysis in the letter.

Were the employees' meals exempt with resident meals?

No. The letter expressly taxed employee meals.

What establishment did the statute describe?

A house or institution supplying board and room for a flat monthly rate and serving as the principal residence exclusively for people 62 or older.

Citations and references

• California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6363.6(c) — quoted for meals consumed by residents of a house or institution supplying board and room for a flat monthly rate and serving exclusively as the principal residence of persons age 62 or older; complete text, version, definitions, exceptions, and later history not supplied
• Recent unidentified telephone discussion and inquiry whether one or more live-in employees under age 62 who consumed meals defeated the age condition — date, participants, call notes or transcript, institution identity and qualification, resident and employee roles and ages, room and board terms, meal records, and tax records not reproduced in the official PDF
• August 12, 1981 Staff Counsel Mary C. Armstrong response concluding that under-62 employees did not prevent exclusive-over-62 resident status but that employee meals remained taxable — no requester reply, institution transaction, return, audit, assessment, refund claim, appeal, or later outcome supplied; blind copies sent to D. J. Hennessy, Don Brady, and the San Francisco and Hollywood District Administrators
• Official Annotation 300.0065's under-62 employees, supplied rooms and meals, over-62 residents, section 6363.6(c), employee-meal tax, and August 12, 1981 rules — annotation adds expressly that employees were provided rooms and meals, while the supporting letter says they resided and consumed meals; it omits the telephone provenance, quoted statute, absent institution and transaction records, copied officials, later outcome, and reliance status and supplies no additional proceeding record

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/300-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/300-0065.pdf

Original ruling text

300.0065

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

August 12, 1981

This is to confirm the information given to you in our recent telephone discussion regarding the requirements of Revenue and Taxation Code section 6363.6 (c). Section 6363.6 (c) provides that tax does not apply to the sale or use of meals and food products for human consumption furnished or served to and consumed by residents of: Any house or institution supplying board and room for a flat monthly rate and serving as a principal residence exclusively for persons 62 years of age or older. You wish to know whether section 6363.6 is applicable in situations where one or more employees, who are under 62 years of age, reside at the house or institution and consume meals. We are of the opinion that a house or institution will be considered a principal residence exclusively for persons 62 years of age or older even though some employees who are under the age of 62 years of age and therefore the requirements of section 6363.6 will be considered to have been met. We note that tax will apply to the sale or consumption of meals served to the employees. If you have further questions concerning this matter, please write this office.

Very truly yours,

Mary C. Armstrong
Staff Counsel

MCA: ba
Bc:
Mr. D. J. Hennessy
Mr. Don Brady
San Francisco – District Administrator
Hollywood – District Adminisrator