Was artwork sold to a U.S. Embassy employee in Bangkok exempt when the seller mailed it to San Francisco APO 146 for overseas forwarding?

Plain-English summary

San Diego Auditing wrote on September 14, 1964 about tax on merchandise sold by a redacted seller. Headquarters Tax Counsel understood that the purchaser was an employee of the United States Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand who evidently ordered artwork by mail.

Under the order, the seller mailed the artwork to "U. S. Embassy, APO 146, San Francisco, California." The memorandum understood that address to be the Bangkok embassy's mailing address through the Army Post Office in San Francisco.

Historical Ruling 55(a)(3)(A) specifically addressed sales to Armed Forces personnel. GAT-attributed counsel reasoned that the same provision applied to overseas U.S. Embassy employees receiving mail through that APO.

Because the seller mailed the merchandise to the APO address under the order and it was forwarded to the purchaser overseas, counsel treated the artwork sale as foreign commerce and exempt from sales tax.

The official PDF first describes the seller with a redacted name followed by lowercase "lakeside," but its conclusion names the seller as "Mr. Stephen." The source gives no explanation, so this page does not merge those fragments into a definite identity or location.

No order, mailing receipt, APO record, forwarding proof, artwork description, price or tax proceeding is supplied. The live annotation publishes the basic foreign-commerce result but omits APO 146, the Armed-Forces analogy and seller-name conflict.

Common questions

Did the San Francisco address make the sale a California delivery?

No under this memorandum. Counsel treated APO 146 as the overseas embassy employee's mailing route and relied on forwarding to Bangkok.

Why did a rule about Armed Forces personnel apply?

Counsel reasoned that the same treatment should extend to overseas U.S. Embassy employees who received mail through the San Francisco Army Post Office.

What did the seller have to do?

The seller mailed the artwork under the purchaser's order to the embassy's APO 146 address; the merchandise was then forwarded overseas.

Does the source prove the APO forwarding?

It states that forwarding occurred but supplies no receipt, postal record, tracking, delivery proof or customer confirmation.

Who was the seller?

The source is inconsistent. It first redacts the seller with a "lakeside" fragment and later says "Mr. Stephen," without resolving whether those references identify the same person.

Does the live annotation include the artwork and APO number?

It generalizes the item to tangible personal property and identifies the San Francisco Army Post Office, but it omits APO 146 and the PDF's source conflict.

Citations and references

• Sales and Use Tax Ruling 55(a)(3)(A) — historical Armed-Forces-mail rule extended by analogy; text absent
• September 14, 1964 San Diego Auditing request — identified but not reproduced
• September 28, 1964 GAT-attributed memorandum — foreign-commerce exemption through APO forwarding
• Official Annotation 325.1080 — publishes the contract-mailing and Bangkok-forwarding result

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: Annotation 325.1080
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/325-1080.pdf

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

San Diego - Auditing

From:

Tax Counsel (GAT). - Headquarters

325.1080

Date:

September 28, 1964

Subject:

This is in reply to your letter of September 14 regarding the application of tax with respect to the sale of merchandise by Mr. ---. It is our understanding that Mr. --- is an employee of the United States Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. He evidently ordered by mail certain art work from Mr. --- lakeside. Pursuant to the order Mr. --- mailed the art work to Mr. --- following address: U. S. Embassy, APO 146, San Francisco, California. We understand that this is the mailing address of the United States Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. Although the provisions of paragraph (a) (3) (A) of ruling 55 deal specifically with respect to sales to persons in the Armed Forces, it appears to us that the provisions contained therein are applicable with respect to sales of tangible personal property to overseas employees of the United States Embassy who receive their mail through the Army Post Office in San Francisco. It is, therefore, our opinion that the sale of art work by Mr. Stephen to Mr. --pursuant to which the seller mailed the merchandise to an APO address in San Francisco from which the merchandise was forwarded to the purchaser overseas, was a sale in foreign commerce and exempt from sales tax.

GAT:lar