Did ordinary mail to an airline's South San Francisco address or distant P.O. box count as delivery at the airport export loading facility?

Plain-English summary

A redacted purchaser wrote on March 6, 1953 about property sold to it and addressed to a redacted "--- Francisco Airport." The Board obtained an Oakland District report on the merchandise's physical movement, but neither request nor full report is published.

The report quoted a discussion with the South San Francisco post-office Superintendent of Mails. Packages delivered to a redacted airline at its South San Francisco address could not count as loading-dock delivery unless sent by Special Delivery. Its P.O. box was more than two miles from the air terminal and therefore could not itself be a loading dock.

Tax Counsel E. H. Stetson concluded that vendors using ordinary mail addressed to the redacted San Francisco recipient had not delivered at the loading platform or another facility for immediate placement on the exporting carrier. The source prints "placed abroad the exporting carriers" in that sentence; this page does not silently change the preserved text.

The Board was proceeding with a retailer reaudit and would recommend refund for tax paid on sales actually delivered to the airport, but not for sales merely mailed to the purchaser's San Francisco address. The source records no tax amount, refund calculation or final reaudit outcome.

The live Annotation 325.1120 adds a later rule dated November 15, 1983. It says retailer delivery aboard a foreign-departing aircraft is nontaxable, while delivery short of the aircraft—such as at a ticket desk or waiting area—is taxable whether made to the purchaser or airline employee. It assumes personal items such as jewelry, cameras and fur coats that the airline did not specifically contract to carry by bill of lading.

The linked PDF contains no 1983 opinion, facts or authority. That later annotation layer is therefore reported separately rather than merged into the 1953 letter.

Common questions

Did ordinary mail to the airline equal loading-dock delivery?

No. The postal discussion said only Special Delivery packages to that address could be construed as reaching the loading dock.

Why did the P.O. box fail?

It was located more than two miles from the air terminal and was not itself a loading dock.

What sales were recommended for refund?

Those involving merchandise delivered to the airport, not items merely mailed to the purchaser at the local address.

Was a refund actually granted?

The source announces a reaudit and recommendation but provides no calculation, claim, approval, payment or final result.

What did the 1983 annotation layer add?

It drew the line at onboard delivery to the departing aircraft and supplied ticket-desk, waiting-area, airline-employee and personal-item examples.

Is the November 15, 1983 supporting opinion available in the linked PDF?

No. The official link contains only the April 7, 1953 letter.

Citations and references

• March 6, 1953 purchaser request — identified but not reproduced
• Oakland District report and South San Francisco postal discussion — quoted in part; full records absent
• April 7, 1953 Tax Counsel response — reaudit and limited refund recommendation without final result
• November 15, 1983 annotation layer — onboard-aircraft rule without a supporting opinion in the linked PDF
• Official Annotation 325.1120 — combines the 1953 and 1983 dates and rules

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: Annotation 325.1120
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/325-1120.pdf

Original ruling text

325.1120

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

April 7, 1953

Gentlemen:
After receipt of your letter of March 6, 1953, we requested a report from our Oakland District Office regarding the physical movement of property sold to you and addressed to
--- Francisco Airport. The report has now been received and states in part: “From our discussion of this method of delivery with the Superintendent of Mails, Post Office, South San Francisco, it appears no packages delivered to --- Air Lines --- South San Francisco, could be construed as having been delivered to the loading dock unless it had been sent by Special Delivery. Furthermore, it would appear the P.O. Box could not be construed to be a loading dock as it is located more than two miles from the air terminal.” It is therefore, our opinion that vendors delivering merchandise by mail addressed to --- San Francisco, cannot be regarded as having delivered the merchandise to the loading platform or other facility from which the goods are forthwith placed abroad the exporting carriers. We are proceeding with a reaudit of the above-named retailer and will recommend for refund tax paid on those sales of merchandise delivered to the airport but not on those sales mailed to the purchaser where addressed merely to ---, San Francisco.

Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel

EHS: ph
cc: Oakland – Auditing (CLH)