Was a chassis sale taxable when an out-of-state buyer directed delivery to a California installer that apparently took no title and installed a special body?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1953. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.
Plain-English summary
An unidentified out-of-state dealer or retailer wrote on August 17, 1953 about a truck chassis bought from it by a redacted customer in Salem, Oregon. The customer directed the recipient to have the chassis delivered to a redacted Oakland company for installation of a special body. The request, purchase order and contracts are absent.
A redacted company billed the recipient an amount for California sales tax on the unit delivered here. The PDF's redactions obscure the complete party map; the live annotation identifies a California manufacturer as the delivering party and says both dealer and buyer were outside California.
Tax Counsel E. H. Stetson agreed with the billing under a quoted portion of historical Revenue and Taxation Code section 6007. That provision treated California delivery by an owner, former owner or factor to a consumer under a retail sale made by a retailer not engaged in California as a California retail sale by the person making delivery. The delivering person had to include the retail selling price in gross receipts.
The Oakland installer apparently did not take title. Counsel therefore treated the installer as the consumer's agent or representative, making the California handoff delivery to the consumer and a taxable retail sale by the delivering person.
The source does not identify the companies, show the installer's title status, reproduce the sales and installation agreements or state the price and tax billed. The live annotation supplies role labels but omits the title assumption, section 6007 quotation and billing posture.
Common questions
Did the Oregon buyer's location make the chassis sale nontaxable?
No. Counsel focused on delivery to the buyer's agent in California, despite the dealer and buyer being outside the state.
Why was the Oakland installer treated as the consumer's agent?
The letter says the installer apparently did not take title and took delivery on the customer's behalf. No contract or title record is supplied.
Who was treated as making the California retail sale?
The quoted section treated the owner, former owner or factor making the qualifying California delivery as the person making the in-state retail sale.
What amount entered gross receipts?
Section 6007's quoted text says the property's retail selling price, but the source gives no dollar amount.
Does the PDF clearly identify the dealer, manufacturer and installer?
No. Their names and several roles are redacted. The live annotation supplies the manufacturer/dealer/buyer relationship at a higher level.
Does the source record a tax payment or later dispute?
No. It mentions an amount billed for California sales tax but provides no invoice, payment, filing, audit, assessment, claim, appeal or later outcome.
Citations and references
- California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6007 — historical delivery rule quoted in part
- August 17, 1953 recipient request — identified but not reproduced
- September 1, 1953 Tax Counsel response — approves the sales-tax billing under the stated title and agency assumptions
- Official Annotation 325.0840 — supplies party roles hidden by redactions while omitting the statutory and billing detail
Source
- Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
- Annotation page: Annotation 325.0840
- Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/325-0840.pdf
Original ruling text
325.0840
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
September 1, 1953
Attention
Gentlemen:
It appears from your letter of August 17 that the --- of Salem, Oregon, purchased a truck chassis from you and directed you to have it delivered to ---, Oakland, for the installation of a special body. The --- Company has billed you for California sales tax with respect to the sale of the unit which was delivered in this State to --- which took delivery apparently on behalf of your customer. We believe that the action of the --- Company in billing you an amount for California sales tax was in accordance with the following portion of Section 6007 of the California Sales and Use Tax Law: “The delivery in this State of tangible personal property by an owner or former owner thereof or by a factor, if the delivery is to a consumer pursuant to a retail sale made by a retailer not engaged in business in this State, is a retail sale in this State by the person making the delivery. He shall include the retail selling price of the property in his gross receipts.” The --- was an owner of former owner and as --- apparently did not take title to the unit, delivery by ---- to this company in this State was delivery to the agent or representative of your customer, the consumer. You will note that such deliveries are retail sales in this State by the person making the delivery who is required to pay sales tax on the retail selling price of the property.
Very truly yours,
E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel
EHS:ph
What does the law say today, for your facts?
This ruling is from 1953. 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