Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Were ordinary telephone and leased-line charges treated as rent for tangible property?

Short answer No. The opinion treated ordinary telephone service and leased lines for telephone or teletype service as services, while leaving an equipment-inclusive system unresolved.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 330.2980
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1965-12-31
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Unidentified correspondent asking about telephone-company, leased-line and equipment-inclusive teletype charges
Topics
telephone company service charges leased line telephone line accessory equipment no numbered authority
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1965. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1965
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This Dec. 31, 1965 letter answers an unpublished Dec. 15 request whose year, author and referral are unknown. It gives only a general result for ordinary telephone/teletype lines and declines the operating/accessory-equipment system for missing facts. Live 330.2980 omits unresolved branch. Another taxpayer cannot rely; verify exact service, dedicated equipment, possession/control, bundled charge and current law. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ruling (PDF)

Plain-English summary

An unidentified correspondent's unreproduced December 15 letter asked about telephone-company charges and was referred to the responding office. The request year, author, original office, referral date and record are absent.

Counsel generally treated ordinary telephone service and telephone/teletype leased lines as service charges, not tangible-property rent. No provider, service, line, contract or amount appears.

A different leased teletype system included operating/accessory equipment. Counsel could not answer because neither charges nor system nature was known and asked for all available information. No response or follow-up opinion appears.

Live Annotation 330.2980 publishes only the ordinary-service/leased-line conclusion. It omits absent request/referral, unknown system/charges, equipment-inclusive unresolved question, request for more information, no cited authority and missing outcome.

No request, referral, requester/provider identity, telephone/teletype service, line, system/equipment, contract, charge/invoice, additional submission, follow-up advice, billing, audit, assessment, claim, appeal or later outcome appears.

What this means for you

Separate network service from dedicated equipment and document possession/control plus each bundled charge. This letter did not classify an equipment-inclusive system without those facts.

Common questions

Did leased line make equipment rent?

No. The general telephone or teletype line charge was not treated as a tangible-property lease.

Did counsel clear the complete teletype system?

No. The equipment-inclusive system remained unresolved for lack of facts.

What additional facts were requested?

Information about the nature of the system and its charges.

Did the requester provide them?

No later submission appears.

What authority did counsel cite?

None.

Does live 330.2980 disclose unresolved equipment?

No.

Citations and references

  • No numbered authority appears
  • December 15 request/referral and all system/equipment/charge/outcome records — absent
  • Live Annotation 330.2980 — service/line conclusion without unresolved branch

Source

Original ruling text

330.2980

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

December 31, 1965

Gentlemen:
Your letter of December 15 which inquires about the taxability of telephone company charges has been referred to this office for consideration. In general, service charges for ordinary telephone services and for "leased lines" for telephone or teletype service are not considered charges for the leasing of tangible personal property for the purposes of the Sales and Use Tax Law. We are unable to reply to your question about a "leased teletype system, including operating and accessory equipment", because we do not know the nature of the charges or the system itself. Would you send us whatever information you have about the system in question.

Very truly yours,

Philip R. Dougherty
Assistant Counsel

PRD:bn [lb]

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1965. 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