Did required property-tax, insurance, repair and interest charges enter the sale measure when a lessee exercised an equipment purchase option, and was the blank lease a lease in lieu of sale?

Plain-English summary

An unidentified equipment lessor's November 9 request asked how California's amended lease rules applied to its equipment leases. The request, identity and underlying transaction records are absent.

Under the described option, a lessee could buy equipment for retail price less rentals paid when it exercised. Exercise also required charges for property taxes, insurance, repairs and interest. Because the lessee had to pay them to make the purchase right effective, the opinion included every charge in equipment sales price and the measure of tax on the sale.

The letter separately addressed lease classification after amendments to the law. Equipment substantially consumed during the lease's bound period was no longer automatically a lease in lieu of sale. Unless it otherwise came within former Ruling 61, the letter treated it as an ordinary lease.

Counsel reviewed a blank lease and found nothing on its face requiring lease-in-lieu-of-sale classification. That contract is not reproduced, so the published record does not expose the language counsel reviewed.

The opinion says a revised Ruling 61 and Rulings 62, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75 and 81 were enclosed to explain the changes. None appears in the official PDF, and the letter states no separate result under the seven additional rulings.

Live Annotation 330.3500 matches the mandatory-charge conclusion. It omits the purchase-price formula, amended-law classification discussion, blank-contract review and missing enclosures. No equipment description, amount, exercised option, completed sale, tax computation or later agency outcome appears.

Common questions

Why were the additional charges taxable on option exercise?

The lessee could not effectively exercise the purchase right without paying them, so they became part of sales price.

Which charges did the source identify?

Property taxes, insurance, repairs and interest.

How was the option price calculated?

The described price was retail price less rentals paid when the lessee exercised the option. No actual price or rent appears.

Did the letter classify the blank contract as a lease in lieu of sale?

No. It found nothing on the contract's face that required that classification.

What did the amendments change for substantially consumed equipment?

The letter said that equipment was no longer automatically a lease in lieu of sale; unless Ruling 61 otherwise applied, it was an ordinary lease.

Are the blank lease and ruling enclosures available?

No. The PDF identifies them but does not reproduce them.

Does the source show an exercised option or tax computation?

No. It states an opinion on described terms but supplies no equipment, amount, exercise, sale, tax record or later outcome.

Citations and references

• Former Sales and Use Tax Ruling 61 — historical lease-in-lieu-of-sale classification; revised copy said to be enclosed but absent
• Former Sales and Use Tax Rulings 62, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75 and 81 — listed as explanatory enclosures but absent and not separately applied
• The letter cites no statute or regulation by section.
• Live Annotation 330.3500 — mandatory property-tax, insurance, repair and interest charge result
• November 9 request, blank lease and every equipment, price, rent, charge, option, sale, tax and outcome record — absent

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: Annotation 330.3500
• Original supporting opinion: 330.3500 PDF

Original ruling text

330.3500

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

December 15, 1965

Gentlemen:
This is in reply to your letter of November 9 in which you request our opinion on the application of the Sales and Use Tax Law to your leases of equipment. As we understand the situation which confronts you, you presently have leased equipment which the lessee has an option to purchase. The purchase price is the retail price, less the rentals paid at the time of the lessee's exercise of his option. Upon exercise of the option, the lessee must also pay a charge for property taxes, insurance, repairs, and interest. Since these charges are mandatory to the effective exercise of the purchase right, they are part of the sales price of the equipment. Such charges must be included in the measure of the tax arising out of the sale. The amendments to the law have been effective in changing to some extent classification of leases as leases in lieu of sale. Equipment which is substantially consumed during the bound period of the lease is no longer mandatorily considered to be leased in lieu of sale; unless it otherwise comes within the rule expressed by Ruling 61, it will be considered an ordinary lease. We are enclosing a copy of Ruling 61, which has been revised to reflect the amendments to the law. We have reviewed the blank lease contract you sent with your letter. There is nothing on its face which requires it to be considered a lease in lieu of sale. In order to assist you in understanding the changes in the law, we are sending you copies of Rulings 61, 62, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, and 81. If you have any further questions after perusing the enclosed material, please do not hesitate to write to us again.

Very truly yours,

Philip R. Dougherty
Assistant Counsel

PRD:bn [lb]