Were vehicles registered under California's then-new multipurpose classification treated as mobile transportation equipment?

Plain-English summary

DMV created a new "MP" multipurpose-vehicle classification effective January 1, 1974 for vehicles with jeep-like body designs and limited cargo space. The examples included Jeep, Bronco, Blazer, Scout, Jimmy, Commando, Land Rover, Land Cruiser, Brute IV, and The Thing.

California's 1974 memorandum proposed treating those MP vehicles as passenger vehicles rather than mobile transportation equipment. It reasoned that DMV viewed them as not designed, used, or maintained primarily for transporting property.

For a Surfer-Van, the memorandum made the result turn on registration: house car, passenger vehicle, or MP meant non-MTE; van or truck meant MTE.

That registration-based shortcut is historically limited. A later official 1975 memorandum in this collection states that DMV classifications are not conclusive, so current treatment requires checking present law and the vehicle's actual characteristics.

Source limits and later agency position

The July 16, 1974 memorandum responds to Van Nuys Auditing's June 13 memorandum and enclosed material. Its author says he checked with a named person at DMV headquarters and recounts a November 23, 1973 DMV memorandum. Neither the audit material, communication record, DMV memorandum, nor Assembly Bill 505 text is included in the official PDF.

As recounted, DMV created the MP classification effective January 1, 1974 after Assembly Bill 505, principally because of a weight-fee collection problem. The DMV memorandum reportedly said jeep-body-design vehicles with limited cargo areas were not primarily designed, used, or maintained for transporting property and should be passenger vehicles. The source supplies no registration certificate, body specification, weight record, cargo-use evidence, or particular vehicle inspection.

The Board author's adoption language was qualified: following DMV “would not appear to be unreasonable,” was “especially” supported by his opinion that section 465 already allowed passenger classification, and “seems desirable” because staff could look to the pink slip. The Surfer-Van result then turned entirely on the reported registration label. The memorandum provides no taxpayer, transaction, vehicle, lease, price, return, assessment, or final tax outcome.

The later official May 28, 1975 memorandum for Annotation 335.0014 says DMV classifications are not conclusive and directs auditors to actual MTE status despite the label. That later source does not erase this historical memorandum, but it prevents presenting the 1974 shortcut as a universal current rule.

The live 335.0060 annotation now says vehicles registered as multipurpose vehicles, with examples, are not MTE. It omits the DMV memo quotation, weight-fee context, qualified reasoning, section 465 opinion, and Surfer-Van branches.

Common questions

What vehicle designs did the source call multipurpose?

It listed jeep-like models including Jeep Universal, Bronco, Blazer, Scout, Jimmy, Commando, Land Rover, Land Cruiser, Brute IV, and The Thing.

How did the memorandum classify a Surfer-Van?

It treated house-car, passenger-vehicle, or MP registration as non-MTE and van or truck registration as MTE.

Is DMV registration always conclusive?

No. A later official opinion in the same annotation collection expressly rejected that universal proposition.

Did this memorandum decide tax for an identified vehicle or transaction?

No. It gave classification guidance without a taxpayer, registration, vehicle record, lease, assessment, or payment outcome.

Citations and references

• California Vehicle Code section 465
• California Assembly Bill 505 — described as effective January 1, 1974
• November 23, 1973 DMV memorandum — quoted but not included
• June 13, 1974 audit memorandum and enclosed material — referenced but not included
• CDTFA Annotation 335.0014 (May 28, 1975) — later agency position on DMV labels

Verbatim support

From the official July 16, 1974 memorandum:

Although DMV in making this new classification was primarily concerned with its weight fee collection problem, it would not appear to be unreasonable for us to conclude that such vehicles are to be regarded as passenger vehicles for sales and use tax purposes.

Such a position seems desirable from our standpoint as well as the taxpayer since we can still base our decision by looking to the pink slip classification.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/335-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/335-0060.pdf

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

Van Nuys – Auditing (CSH)

From:

HDQRS – Tax Counsel (GLR)

Subject:

Classification of Recreational Vehicles and Vans

335.0060

Date:

July 16, 1974

Thank you for the material you enclosed with your memo of June 13, 1974. In checking with Mr. C. Peters at DMV Headquarters, I find that effective January 1, 1974 the administrative staff of DMV created a new vehicle classification called multi-purpose vehicles; designated on the pink slip as “MP”. In DMV’s view the necessity of such a step was the passage of A.B. 505 effective the first of this year. In a memo of November 23, 1973, DMV concluded that effective January 1, 1974 certain vehicles known as multi-purpose vehicles: “…are not designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property even though they do have limited cargo-carrying area. These vehicles have a body design recognized as the ‘old Willys or Ford army jeep’, Jeep Universal, Bronco, Blazer, Scout, Jimmy, Commando, Land Rover, Land Cruiser, Brute IV, and The Thing….” They went on to conclude that “Vehicles of this body design are to be classified as passenger vehicles….” Although DMV in making this new classification was primarily concerned with its weight fee collection problem, it would not appear to be unreasonable for us to conclude that such vehicles are to be regarded as passenger vehicles for sales and use tax purposes. This is especially true since in my opinion DMV could have classified such vehicles as passenger vehicles under Section 465 of the Vehicle Code even before the enactment of A.B. 505. Such a position seems desirable from our standpoint as well as the taxpayer since we can still base our decision by looking to the pink slip classification.

Van Nuys – Aud. (CSH)

-2-

July 16, 1974
335.0060

In regard to the Surfer-Van, it is our opinion that if such a unit is registered as a house, car, passenger vehicle or “MP”, it is not mobile transportation equipment. If, however, it is registered as a van or truck it is mobile transportation equipment.

GLR:lb