Did the exemption for an original publisher's complete periodical reprints also cover separately reprinted advertisements or articles?

Plain-English summary

An unnamed requester's June 24, 1988 letter to Assistant Chief Counsel Gary Jugum asked whether the exemption for an original publisher's periodical reprints extended to an advertisement reprinted and sold back to the advertiser that placed it.

Tax Counsel John Abbott said tax applied to the publisher's sale of an advertisement reprint whether or not the buyer was the original advertiser. The advertisement reprint did not meet Regulation 1590(a)(2)'s periodical tests.

Article reprints also failed unless the reprinted articles themselves were issued as a series at stated intervals no longer than three months.

The source describes a narrower prior rule: an original publisher's later reprinting of the same complete periodical that was originally tax exempt also qualified. That did not make a portion of the periodical exempt.

Prior-reference conflict and source limits

The request calls the prior authority Annotation 385.1240. The letter later calls the mentioned legal opinion Annotation 385.1204, dates it April 15, 1982, and quotes: “Reprints of exempt periodicals by the original publisher are also exempt periodicals.” The source does not resolve whether those numbers refer to the same opinion or which is correct.

The live annotation, marked amended 2003–3, adds a note stating only: “Subsequent statutory change to section 6362.7, operative November 11, 1992, regarding the exemption for sales of periodicals.” It does not reproduce the change or explain its effect on complete or partial reprints. This page preserves the printed November 11 date rather than harmonizing it with other sources.

The official PDF does not include the June 24 request, earlier legal opinion, original periodical or issue, complete reprint, advertisement or article reprint, advertiser or other customer, publication or series schedule, publishing or printing agreement, prices or invoices, sales, returns, exemption documentation, tax calculations or payments, audit, assessment, claim, appeal, later statutory text, or outcome. The requester, publisher, advertiser, publications, articles, transactions, and amounts are redacted or unidentified.

The source has an unbalanced quotation mark before “tax applies” and omits terminal punctuation after “this letter.” The original-text section preserves those forms rather than silently correcting the official record.

The live annotation preserves the complete-original-reprint, advertisement-reprint, and article-series distinctions, original-publisher and original-exemption conditions, three-month interval, and date. It adds the 2003–3 marker and section 6362.7 note. It omits the request and counsel, Regulation 1590(a)(2), sale to any customer rule, 385.1240/385.1204 conflict and 1982 date, exact prior quotation, missing records, redactions, source forms, and absent outcome.

What this means for you

Periodical publishers and tax professionals

Distinguish a complete reprinting from an excerpt. Preserve the original issue and exemption record, every reprint, publisher identity, articles and ads, series and issue schedule, printing and publishing agreements, invoices, buyers, sales, returns, tax calculations, payments, and current section 6362.7 analysis.

Common questions

Q: Could the original publisher reprint the same complete exempt periodical?

A: Yes, under the prior interpretation described in the opinion.

Q: Was an advertisement reprint exempt?

A: No.

Q: Could article reprints ever qualify?

A: Only if they themselves formed a qualifying series issued at stated intervals.

Q: Which prior annotation did the letter rely on?

A: The request says 385.1240, while the letter later says and quotes 385.1204. The source does not resolve the conflict.

Q: What did the 2003 live note change?

A: It only flags a section 6362.7 statutory change operative November 11, 1992; the note does not supply the text or effect.

Citations and references

• California Sales and Use Tax Regulation 1590(a)(2)
• Annotation 385.1240 in the request and Annotation 385.1204 (April 15, 1982) later in the letter — unresolved identity conflict
• California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6362.7 — 2003 live note flags a change operative November 11, 1992 without the text
• Request, prior opinion, periodicals and reprints, ads and articles, transactions, tax records, and outcome — described or implicated but not documented

Verbatim support

From the official Tax Counsel letter:

tax applies to the sale by a publisher of a reprint of an advertisement which appeared in the publisher's newspaper or periodical, whether or not the sale is to the customer who placed the advertisement.

Nor would the publisher's reprints of articles appearing in the original exempt periodical, unless the reprinted articles themselves were issued as part of a series at stated intervals not exceeding three months.

We do not feel this annotation can be interpreted to mean that reprints of a portion of the periodical must also qualify as exempt.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Annotation page: Annotation 385.1241
• Original supporting opinion: 385.1241 PDF

Original ruling text

385.1241

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

(916) 445-6493

July 25, 1988

Reprints of periodical advertisements
Dear ---:
In your June 24, 1988 letter to Mr. Gary Jugum, Assistant Chief Counsel, you write: “Annotation 385.1240 provides for the exempt sale of reprints from periodicals by the original publisher. Does this exemption also apply to reprints of advertisements sold by the publisher of a newspaper or periodical back to the customer who placed the advertisement in that newspaper or periodical? Our opinion is that "tax applies to the sale by a publisher of a reprint of an advertisement which appeared in the publisher's newspaper or periodical, whether or not the sale is to the customer who placed the advertisement. In order to qualify as a periodical exempt from sales and use taxes, a publication must meet the tests established by Regulation 1590(a) (2). A publisher's reprints of advertisements for the customer would clearly not meet these tests. Nor would the publisher's reprints of articles appearing in the original exempt periodical, unless the reprinted articles themselves were issued as part of a series at stated intervals not exceeding three months. The legal opinion you mention, Annotation 385.1204 (4/15/82), states:

“Reprints of exempt periodicals by the original publisher are also exempt periodicals”

This annotation interprets the periodical exemption to also apply to later reprintings of the same periodical which was originally tax exempt. We do not feel this annotation can be interpreted to mean that reprints of a portion of the periodical must also qualify as exempt.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or comments about this letter

Sincerely,

John Abbott
Tax Counsel

JA:jb