Was adding a second inscription to an existing cemetery marker taxable?

Plain-English summary

The December 18, 1995 letter answered a cemetery association's December 8 request. Adding a second inscription to an existing granite cemetery marker was nontaxable because the inscription was added to real property. The answer stayed the same if the marker was removed, engraved, and returned to the site. The PDF calls this the “engraving of double urns” example referenced in the missing request; the live annotation characterizes the off-site work as repair labor.

Adding a new inscription plate to an existing bronze marker was taxable. In that transaction, the provider sold new tangible personal property rather than merely working on the existing marker.

Source and live-annotation limits

The PDF does not reproduce the December 8 request or double-urn example. It identifies no deceased person, marker owner, cemetery plot, granite or bronze marker, real-property attachment, inscription, removal and return, new plate, provider, contract, charge, invoice, tax reporting, completed transaction, or later outcome. It cites no statute, regulation, ruling, case, or other legal authority.

The live annotation preserves both outcomes and adds that temporarily removed granite-marker work was repair labor and the bronze transaction sold tangible personal property. It omits the cemetery association, December 8 request, double-urn reference, absent records, lack of cited authority, and later-outcome gap.

What this means for you

Cemeteries, memorial providers, and tax professionals

Document whether work changes an existing marker that is part of realty or transfers a new plate, plus marker attachment, temporary removal and return, materials, contract, and charges.

Common questions

Did temporary removal make the granite work taxable?

No. The second inscription remained nontaxable repair work on the existing marker.

Why was the bronze-marker transaction taxable?

The customer received a newly sold inscription plate.

Did the letter treat all cemetery inscriptions alike?

No. It distinguished work on existing real property from the sale of new property.

Citations and references

• December 8, 1995 request and double-urn engraving example — referenced but not included
• No numbered statute, regulation, ruling, case, or other legal authority is cited in the opinion

Verbatim support

From the official December 18, 1995 letter:

The first transaction is nontaxable, because the inscription is added to real property.

The second transaction is taxable, because the property sold is new property.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/350-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/350-0004.pdf

Original ruling text

350.0004

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

JOHAN KLEHS
First District, Hayward

LEGAL DIVISION - MIC: 82
450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
(P. O. BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CA 94279-0082)
TELEPHONE: (916) 445-3723
FAX: (916) 323-3387

DEAN F. ANDAL
Second District, Stockton
ERNEST J. DRONENBURG, JR.
Third District, San Diego
BRAD SHERMAN
Fourth District, Los Angeles
KATHLEEN CONNELL
Controller, Sacramento

December 18, 1995
BURTON W. OLIVER
Executive Director

Ms. I--- S. C--Secretary-Treasurer
S--- V--- Cemetery Association
P. O. Box XXXX
---, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Dear Ms. C---:
This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1995. California sales tax does not apply to charges made to add a second inscription to an existing cemetery granite marker. Sales tax does apply to charges made for a new inscription plate, added to an existing cemetery bronze marker. The first transaction is nontaxable, because the inscription is added to real property. The charge would be nontaxable even if the granite marker were removed from the site, the inscription were added, and the marker were returned to the site. This is the engraving of double urns example, referred to by you in your letter. The second transaction is taxable, because the property sold is new property. Very truly yours,

Gary J. Jugum
Assistant Chief Counsel
GJJ:sr
bc:

Mr. David H. Levine
Mr. Ronald L. Dick
Mr. John L. Waid
Mr. Candice McCanne