What proof did a California resident need to show that an Oregon-bought motorhome was used outside California before entry?

Plain-English summary

A California resident bought a used motorhome in Oregon, stored it there between trips, and planned to bring it into California after several out-of-state journeys. California entry triggered a presumption that the motorhome had been purchased for California use.

The buyer could rebut the presumption by satisfactory evidence of more than 90 days of qualifying out-of-state use before entry. Storage while awaiting shipment to California did not count. The letter warned that declarations and odometer readings alone likely would be difficult to sustain and suggested grocery, restaurant, entertainment, maintenance, campground, waste-dumping, miscellaneous-purchase, and telephone records tied to out-of-state locations.

If the buyer could not prove the pre-entry period, the six-month test after first California entry remained available: use outside California at least half that period could overcome the presumption. The actual sufficiency of the records was left to audit staff.

The claimed trips were about 1,500 miles in May and 1,200 in June, with another 2,500-mile Canada trip planned in August. The buyer said the vehicle's more-than-2,000-mile fuel range and lack of lodging receipts left only declarations and odometer comparisons; counsel regarded that record as difficult to sustain.

The request, trip and storage records, odometer history, registration, Regulation 1620 enclosure, audit submission, and outcome are absent. The live annotation dates the matter September 27 and cites section 6248, while the supporting letter is dated October 24 and cites section 6246; neither official source resolves those differences.

Common questions

Why were declarations and odometer readings likely insufficient?

Counsel expected some contemporaneous documents tying the motorhome and occupants to outside locations and dates. High fuel range and lack of hotel stays did not explain the absence of all grocery, dining, entertainment, park, waste-dumping, repair, telephone, or other records.

What evidence did counsel suggest?

Outside-state grocery and miscellaneous-purchase receipts, dining and entertainment receipts or ticket stubs, maintenance and repair receipts, park or facility registrations, waste-dumping receipts, and telephone bills showing calls from outside locations.

Did waiting until after October 15 change the legal test?

No. The letter said the analysis and satisfactory-evidence requirement remained the same regardless of entry date; the records still had to establish qualifying use and distinguish storage awaiting shipment.

What if more than 90 days before entry could not be proved?

The buyer could still attempt to establish outside use or storage for at least half of the six months immediately after first California entry. No actual six-month record is supplied.

Who decided whether the evidence was enough?

The Sales and Use Tax Department's auditor would evaluate the documents in any audit. Counsel expressly said he could not be more specific and supplied no final evidence ruling.

Could the buyer rely on this opinion for section 6596 relief?

No, because the client was not identified. The source supplies no later identified request or reliance decision.

What differs between the live annotation and linked opinion?

The annotation uses September 27, 1996 and section 6248; the letter uses October 24, 1996 and section 6246. The annotation also adds amendment markers and a temporary twelve-month rule. No correction or later texts resolve those points.

Citations and references

• California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 6201 and 6246 and Regulation 1620(b)(3) — cited for use tax, purchase intent, entry timing, shipment storage, and the six-month fallback; complete authorities, counting and proof rules, amendments, later history, and current law not supplied
• BTLG Annotation 570.0940 — cited for satisfactory evidence; underlying opinion, complete facts and authority, history, later treatment, and current status not supplied
• California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6596 — cited to deny reliance because the client was unidentified; complete authority, every condition, procedures, amendments, later history, and current law not supplied
• August 2 request, phone discussion, missing Regulation 1620 enclosure, and October 24 response — no underlying records, audit submission, tax calculation, assessment, claim, appeal, or later outcome supplied
• Official Annotation 325.0094's different date and section, amendment markers, temporary-law note, and historical summary — does not resolve the differences, supplies no later texts, and omits the reliance refusal, missing records, outcome, and limits

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Annotation page: Annotation 325.0094
• Original supporting opinion: 325.0094 PDF

Original ruling text

325.0094

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

October 24, 1996

Re:

Unidentified Taxpayer
Purchase of Motor Home

Dear
This is in response to your letter dated August 2, 1996, in which you ask whether your client would have to pay use tax on his motor home when he brings it into California. In your letter you state: "... At all times my client has resided in California. The motor home was purchased from a dealer in Oregon on or about April 15, and at the time had about 10,000 miles on it. Since then, it has been stored in Oregon when not in use. "This is a large motor home, and certainly could not be conveniently used for any purposes other than extended vacation trips. To date my client has taken two trips in the motor home, traveling approximately 1500 miles in May and 1200 miles in June, all outside California. He will again use the vehicle this month to go to Canada, and expects to put another 2500 miles on it. "As far as documentation, the vehicle carries enough fuel for more than 2000 miles. Therefore, we cannot provide fuel or maintenance receipts establishing the date or itinerary of any of the use. Since we also do not have lodging receipts, there probably is no record directly connecting the motor home to the particular trips or a specific locale. "Therefore I anticipate the documentation will be limited to declarations of my client and other persons having knowledge of the fact I have related, and comparison of odometer readings from the time of sale. "Based on these facts, please advise me as to whether you believe the use tax would be due if the vehicle is brought into California and registered at the end of this month's trip. Would the answer be different if the client waited until after October 15?"

As you know, California imposes the use tax on the storage, use or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for use in this state. (Rev. & Tax. Code § 6201.) There is a presumption in the Sales and Use Tax Law (section 6246) that tangible personal property shipped or brought into this state by the purchaser was purchased for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. Since your client will be bringing the vehicle into California, this presumption applies. It is explained in subdivision (b) (3) of Sales and Use Tax Regulation 1620, a copy which is enclosed, as follows: "[P]roperty purchased outside of California which is brought into California is regarded as having been purchased for use in this state if the first functional use of the property is in California. When the property is first functionally used outside of California, the property will nevertheless be presumed to have been purchased for use in this state if it is brought into California within 90 days after its purchase, unless the property is used or stored outside of California one-half or more of the time during the six-month period immediately following its entry into this state. Prior out-of-state use not exceeding 90 days from the date of purchase to the date of entry into California is of a temporary nature and is not proof of an intent that the property was purchased for use elsewhere. Prior out-of-state use in excess of 90 days from the date of purchase to the date of entry into California, exclusive of any time of shipment to California, or time of storage for shipment to California, will be accepted as proof of an intent that the property was not purchased for use in California." It is necessary for a purchaser who claims that he or she did not purchase the property for use in this state to overcome the presumption that it was purchased for use in California by satisfactory evidence. (See, e.g., Bus. Taxes L. Guide Annot. 570.0940, 3/31/50.) If an audit is conducted, the auditor will determine whether your client has overcome the presumption that the vehicle was purchased for use in California based upon the information provided. The auditor, in addition to examining your client's use of the vehicle for the 90 day period following the purchase, would also examine the storage of the vehicle during that period to determine whether it was stored awaiting its shipment into California. We believe it is going to be difficult for your client to overcome the presumption that the vehicle was purchased for use in California based solely upon declarations and odometer readings. It is reasonable to expect that your client would have some documents to support his contention that he used the vehicle outside California for more than 90 days. The documents your client could use to support his contention are receipts for purchases made out of state for groceries to provision the vehicle, dining out and entertainment receipts or ticket stubs from movies, receipts for maintenance such as oil changes or other repair to the vehicle, receipts for registration at parks or other facilities used during travel, receipts for dumping of waste, receipts for miscellaneous purchases, and telephone bills showing calls made from places outside the state.

Regardless of the date your client brings the vehicle into California, the analysis remains the same, as does the requirement to overcome the presumption that the vehicle was purchased for use in California by satisfactory evidence. If your client is unable to establish that he used the vehicle for more than 90 days prior to entry into California, your client can still overcome the presumption by establishing that he used the vehicle one-half or more of the time during the six month period immediately following its first entry into California. Upon review of the documentation your client submits, the Sales and Use Tax Department will determine whether your client has provided sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the vehicle was purchased for use in California. As I discussed over the phone with you, it is vitally important that your client maintain good records of his use of the vehicle out of the State of California. I am sorry I cannot be more specific in my advice. The only basis for relief for a person relying on a written opinion from the Board is when that opinion is in response to a written request for advice that discloses all facts, including the identities of the parties. (Rev. & Tax. Code § 6596.) Since you have not identified your client, this letter does not come within the provisions of section 6596. If you have any further questions in regard to the matters contained herein, please do not hesitate to write again.

Yours very truly,

Anthony I. Picciano
Tax Counsel

AIP:cl
Enclosure (Reg. 1620)
cc:

District Administrator