Which American Research Bureau audience reports qualified as exempt periodicals, and could bundled charges be allocated?

Plain-English summary

The opinion reviewed redacted ARB publications under former section 6362 and Ruling 50. The live annotation expands ARB as American Research Bureau.

Counsel first described an unidentified 1950 Attorney General opinion about legal-publication advance sheets issued at intervals no longer than three months and sold with bound volumes, sometimes for one lump-sum price. The advance-sheet charge was exempt under the historical analysis, while the bound-volume charge was not. The publisher's allocation was accepted, but an allocation designed to avoid sales tax would be disregarded.

ARB issued Diary National Reports (United States Television Audience) each broadcast year for September, October, November, January, March, April/May, and June/July. Counsel concluded that the reports met the content and frequency requirements and would accept a reasonable allocation of charges for the Diary as exempt.

Five other series—Day Part Summary, Television Market Analysis, Audience Profile Reports, Local Market Reports, and Syndicated Program Analysis—did not appear often enough to qualify.

The opinion added that Ruling 50's periodical definition excluded books complete in themselves, using book-of-the-month issues, Time-Life World Books, and Reader's Digest Condensed Books as examples. ARB was advised to ask about the reasonableness of any segregated Diary charge.

Later authority and source limits

A February 5, 2002 official staff email published with Annotation 385.0920 warns that, under then-current section 6362.7 and Regulation 1590, periodicals were no longer exempt unless sold by subscription and delivered by mail or common carrier, or covered by another exemption such as nonprofit distribution. The 1966 opinion does not establish current exemption treatment.

The official 385.1500 PDF does not include the request, any report or issue, issue dates or delivery records, content evidence, publisher identity or full ARB name, customer or subscriber, Ruling 50 enclosure, 1950 Attorney General opinion or citation, advance sheets or bound volumes, publisher quotation, contracts, lump-sum or segregated prices, allocation calculations or reasonableness review, invoices, sales or uses, returns, exemption documentation, tax calculations or payments, audit, assessment, claim, appeal, or later outcome. The publisher, customers, transactions, and amounts are redacted or unidentified.

The live annotation supplies the American Research Bureau name and preserves all six report-series titles, the Diary schedule, successful content/frequency result, five frequency failures, and date. It omits section 6362 and Ruling 50, the enclosure, 1950 Attorney General discussion, advance sheets and bound volumes, allocation rule and warning, complete-book exclusion and examples, later 2002 warning, missing records, redactions, and absent outcome.

What this means for you

Research publishers and tax professionals

Classify each report series separately and preserve every issue, content record and actual schedule. Support any bundled-price allocation with contemporaneous contracts, quotations, ordinary pricing, invoices and calculations rather than a tax-driven breakdown, and retain sales, returns, exemption and tax-payment records.

Common questions

Q: Did Diary National Reports qualify?

A: Yes, for both content and frequency.

Q: Could part of a bundled charge be treated as exempt?

A: Yes, if the allocation was reasonable.

Q: Did all American Research Bureau reports qualify?

A: No. The five other named series failed the frequency requirement.

Q: What allocation warning did counsel give?

A: A reasonable Diary allocation could be accepted, but one designed to avoid sales tax would be disregarded.

Q: Was the 1950 Attorney General opinion identified?

A: No. The source describes its advance-sheet and allocation conclusions but gives no citation.

Q: Did Ruling 50 include books complete in themselves?

A: No, according to the opinion.

Citations and references

• Former California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6362
• Former California Sales Tax Ruling 50
• Unidentified 1950 California Attorney General opinion about advance sheets, bound volumes, and allocation
• California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6362.7 and Regulation 1590 — discussed in the February 5, 2002 staff email published with Annotation 385.0920
• Request, reports and issues, Ruling 50 enclosure, pricing, allocation, sales, tax records, and outcome — described or implicated but not documented

Verbatim support

From the official Associate Tax Counsel opinion:

It was pointed out that an allocation which is designed to avoid the imposition of sales tax would be disregarded.

It is our opinion that the Diary National Reports (United States Television Audience) issued each broadcast year for September, October, November, January, March, April/May and June/July qualify for content as well as the required frequency of publication.

The other publications, Day Part Summary, Television Market Analysis, Audience Profile Reports, Local Market Reports and Syndicated Program Analysis, are not issued at the required frequency to meet the test for exemption.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Annotation page: Annotation 385.1500
• Original supporting opinion: 385.1500 PDF

Original ruling text

385.1500

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

March 16, 1966

Dear: --I have checked into the --- --- --- --- publications and the question of whether they meet the requirements for the exemption allowed under section 6362 of the Sales and Use Tax Law and Ruling 50. A copy of the ruling is enclosed. In 1950 the Attorney General issued an opinion on the question of exemption for sales of Advance Sheets of legal publications published regularly at average intervals not exceeding three months. The Advance Sheets are sold along with bound volumes, sometimes for a lump-sum price. The charge for publications issued at average intervals is exempt, but the charge for bound volumes is not. The allocation of costs was also considered. The quotation by the publisher was accepted. It was pointed out that an allocation which is designed to avoid the imposition of sales tax would be disregarded. It is our opinion that the Diary National Reports (United States Television Audience) issued each broadcast year for September, October, November, January, March, April/May and June/July qualify for content as well as the required frequency of publication. A reasonable allocation of charges for the “Diary” would be accepted as exempt. The other publications, Day Part Summary, Television Market Analysis, Audience Profile Reports, Local Market Reports and Syndicated Program Analysis, are not issued at the required frequency to meet the test for exemption. The term “periodical” as used in ruling 50 does not include books complete in themselves, such as book-of-the-month issues, Time-Life World Books, Reader’s Digest Condensed Books, etc. If ARB wants to segregate the charges for the exempt periodical (Diary National Reports) we suggest they inquire as to the reasonableness of a breakdown.

Sincerely,
Robert H. Anderson
Associate Tax Counsel
RHA: dse Enclosed