When did interest begin if chassis were not removed from California within the exemption's 75-day period?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Unidentified parties bought and sold California-manufactured chassis that could qualify under Revenue and Taxation Code section 6388.5 if, among other requirements, they were removed from California within 75 days after delivery. An unidentified party apparently treated the sales as exempt. After day 75, an unidentified party notified the Board that some chassis did not qualify, paid the tax, and was billed interest. The redactions do not establish which party took each action.
The correspondence argued that interest should begin only when the removal period expired because taxability could not be known earlier. The August 20 and November 20 letters, December 22 internal request, parties, chassis records, dates, amounts, and calculations are not reproduced.
Tax counsel rejected that approach. Tax was due by the ordinary deadline for the reporting period in which the sale occurred unless a specific exemption applied. Section 6388.5 did not create a 75-day extension of the payment deadline for transactions that ultimately failed its conditions.
The transaction was either exempt or taxable. Once it did not qualify, interest followed the original due date based on the date of sale, not the sale date plus 75 days. The supporting letter expressly says counsel assumed the existing interest bill used that method; the live annotation states the method without that qualification. Neither source supplies a recomputation, refund claim, appeal, or later outcome.
Common questions
Why did interest run before the seller knew the exemption would fail?
The memorandum treated the removal period as an exemption condition, not a postponement of the tax due date.
Could the sale move into the next reporting quarter because of the 75 days?
No. The tax and interest remained tied to the reporting period of the original sale.
Citations and references
- California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6388.5 — cited for a chassis exemption depending, among other requirements, on removal from California within 75 days after delivery; complete text, all requirements, definitions, amendments, later history, and current law not supplied
- California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 6051 and 6451 — cited for the ordinary tax due date; complete texts, reporting-period facts, exceptions, amendments, later history, and current law not supplied
- California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6591 — cited for interest calculated from the tax due date; complete text, rate, computation, exceptions, amendments, later history, and current law not supplied
- August 20 and November 20, 1987 letters and December 22, 1987 internal memorandum — complete correspondence, parties, agreement, invoices, chassis, delivery and removal records, exemption documents, reporting periods, amounts, payment, billing, and calculations not reproduced
- January 7, 1988 Tax Counsel David H. Levine memorandum — counsel assumed how the existing interest billing had been calculated; no agency reply, recomputation, assessment, refund claim, appeal, or later outcome supplied
- Official Annotation 320.0049's exemption condition, ordinary-due-date calculation, no-extension conclusion, and date — states the calculation without the supporting letter's assumption and omits the correspondence provenance, redacted-party uncertainty, missing records, later outcome, and reliance status and supplies no additional transaction 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/320-0000-all.html
- Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/320-0049.pdf
Original ruling text
State of California
Board of Equalization
Memorandum
To:
Mr. D. F. Enos
Return Review
From:
David H. Levine
Tax Counsel
320.0049
Date:
January 7, 1988
Subject:
This is in response to your memorandum dated December 22, 1987 regarding interest on sales tax due on sales not qualifying for the exemption provided by Revenue and Taxation Code section 6388.5. In a letter to you dated November 20, 1987, --- discusses its purchase of certain chassis from --- The chassis, manufactured in California, were of a kind which could qualify for the Section 6388.5 exemption if, among other requirements, they were removed from California within 75 days after the date of delivery to ---. The sale of chassis was apparently treated by --- as exempt at the time of the sale. However, in a letter dated August 20, 1987, --- notified the Board that --- had ascertained upon expiration of 75 days that some of the chassis did not qualify for the exemption. --- paid the tax due and was billed for interest that had accrued on that tax. I assume this interest was calculated based on the tax having been due for the reporting period in which the original sales were made.
--- believes "that interest should not begin to run until the expiration of the 75-day period following delivery of the chassis, since prior to that time the taxability of the chassis cannot be ascertained." Under this approach, one quarter less of interest would accrue if the sale occurred after the fifteenth day of a quarter because the tax would not be-due until the due date for the quarter after the one in which the sale occurred. This is incorrect. Tax is due on or before the last day of the month following the reporting period in which a sale occurs unless there is a specific exemption. (Rev. & Tax. Code §§ 6051, 6451.) Interest is calculated based on this due date. (Rev. & Tax. Code § 6591.) The exemption applicable to the -transactions is provided by section 6388.5. That exemption does not, however, provide a 75-day exemption from the due date of taxes on transactions that could, but do not, qualify. A transaction is either exempt under section 6388.5 or it is not. If not, the due date of the tax is based on the date of sale, as with other taxable transactions, and not on the date of sale plus 75 days.
DHL:ss
What does the law say today, for your facts?
This ruling is from 1988. 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