Did California's historical motion-picture-film rental exclusion cover stock footage of animals even though it was not a complete production?

Plain-English summary

The Los Angeles District principal auditor's unreproduced February 5 memorandum asked whether rented motion-picture stock shots of animals in action fell within historical section 6006(g)(1).

Tax Counsel said yes. The statute exempted rentals of Motion picture ... films; animal stock shots were motion-picture films, and the text did not permit a complete-production limit.

Former Ruling 19 apparently distinguished stock shots from productions, and Tax Counsel said there would be some merit in using that distinction. The cited statute nevertheless controlled, so the rentals were exempt; the memorandum also says Robert Anderson agreed.

The PDF does not reproduce the requesting memorandum, Ruling 19, contracts, films, charges or transfer terms. Live Annotation 330.2360 carries the conclusion but omits the competing Ruling 19 interpretation and concurrence.

Common questions

Did the film have to be a complete production?

No.

What kind of footage was involved?

Motion-picture stock shots of animals in action.

Why did the statutory language control?

It exempted motion-picture films without adding the proposed production-completeness limit.

Did the opinion say former Ruling 19 was wrong?

No. It acknowledged some merit in Ruling 19's distinction but said section 6006(g)(1) did not permit that limit for this question. The PDF does not reproduce Ruling 19.

Does the source establish today's treatment of digital stock footage?

No. It applies 1968 statutory language to motion-picture films and says nothing about digital media or current law.

May another film business rely on it?

No. It is a historical staff opinion on a sparse, redacted record; CDTFA also warns that statutory law controls over an annotation.

Citations and references

• Revenue and Taxation Code section 6006(g)(1) — quoted in part and applied without the proposed production limit
• Former Ruling 19 — stock-shot/production distinction discussed but source text absent
• February 5 Los Angeles District request — described but absent
• February 19, 1968 TPP memorandum — Robert Anderson concurrence stated
• Official Annotation 330.2360 — holding only

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: Annotation 330.2360
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/330-2360.pdf

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

Los Angeles - Dist. Prin. Aud. (JTQ)

From:

Tax Counsel (TPP)

330.2360

Date:

Feb. 19, 1968

Subject:

This is in reply to your memo of February 5, 1968 in which you ask for an opinion as to whether motion picture "stock shots" of animals in action fall within Section 6006 (g) (1). Section 6006(g) (1) exempts rentals of "Motion picture ... films…" I am compelled to the conclusion that motion picture "stock shots" of animals in action are "motion picture films." Although there would be some merit to limiting the exemption in accordance with our interpretation of Ruling 19, i.e., the distinction which we have drawn between "stock shots" and "productions", the language of Section 6006(g) (1) does not permit such a limitation. Accordingly, it is my opinion that rentals of motion picture "stock shots" are exempt. I have discussed this with Robert Anderson, and he is in agreement.

TPP :kc [lb]