Did the firm's manufactured water-softener transactions provide a service or rent units, and what facts does today's annotation add?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1969. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A redacted firm petitioned for redetermination and received Apr. 23, 1969 hearing, later identified as Santa Ana. Dispute was whether firm rendered soft-water service or rented water-softener units it manufactured. Letter called question close and says Attorney General office representatives considered it earlier that month.
The Board's lawyer says We have been advised to treat transactions as rentals but does not identify adviser or cite law. Staff would recommend denying petition. Firm could request Board hearing in writing within three weeks. No request or final Board action appears.
PDF says attached hearing report dated May 8, revised June 16 and approved. Report is not included. An undated note says question is no longer close and cites Culligan (1976), 17 C 3d 86. Citation independently resolves to full case.
Live Annotation 330.3080 states units attached to homeowner water-supply plumbing are rentals regardless of who services them. Neither plumbing attachment, homeowner, nor servicing responsibility appears in supporting letter; live annotation omits petition/hearing posture, manufactured-unit limitation, close-question/AG consultation, report, offered hearing and missing final outcome.
No petition, hearing report/transcript/exhibits, customer contract, unit or manufacturing record, attachment/plumbing evidence, service record, adviser identity, recommended tax amount, Board-hearing request, final order, payment/refund, appeal or later outcome appears.
What this means for you
Start with contract's true object and evidence of possession/control, plumbing attachment and servicing. Separate contemporaneous 1969 recommendation from facts and categorical language added by current live annotation, then check Culligan and current law.
Common questions
Did soft-water service label control?
No. Staff recommended rental treatment for firm's manufactured-unit transactions.
Did letter discuss plumbing or servicing?
No. Those propositions appear only in live annotation.
Was petition finally denied?
Not shown. Letter only recommends denial and offers Board hearing within three weeks.
Is identified hearing report available?
No. PDF says May 8 report, revised June 16, was attached/approved, but does not include it.
Did later authority reinforce result?
An undated post-1976 note says question was no longer close and cites Culligan, 17 Cal.3d 86.
What does live annotation add and omit?
Adds homeowner plumbing attachment and regardless-who-services rule; omits procedural posture, manufacturing limitation, consultation, report, hearing offer and absent outcome.
Citations and references
- No contemporaneous statute/regulation — none cited
- Culligan Water Conditioning, 17 Cal.3d 86 — later undated note; citation verified
- May 8/June 16, 1969 approved hearing report — identified, absent
- Live Annotation 330.3080 — adds plumbing/servicing propositions
- Every underlying transaction/hearing/final-outcome record — absent
Source
- Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
- Annotation page: Annotation 330.3080
- Original supporting opinion: 330.3080 PDF
Original ruling text
330.3080
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
June 19, 1969
Dear
This is with reference to the petition for redetermination filed on behalf of ---., and the hearing held on the matter last April 23, 1969, in ---. The question of whether your firm is rendering a service in providing soft water to customers or is renting water softener units is a close one, and for that reason was the subject for consideration by representatives from the Attorney General’s office early this month. We have been advised that the transactions wherein your firm uses water softener units which you manufactured should be treated as rentals of those units. Accordingly, our recommendation to the board will be to deny the petition for redetermination. If you wish, you may have a hearing before the board, and if this is desired please notify us in writing within three weeks.
Very truly yours,
Robert H. Anderson
Tax Counsel
RHA/vs
Bc:
San Bernardino – District Administrator
Santa Ana – Subdistrict Administrator
Attached is hearing report dated May 8, 1969 (revised 6/16/69) which has been approved. The hearing on this matter was held in Santa Ana on 4/23/69. Note: this question is no longer close. Culligan (1976) 17 C 3d 86
What does the law say today, for your facts?
This ruling is from 1969. 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