Did bimonthly Science Citation Index issues and a separately sold ten-volume, ten-year cumulative index both qualify as periodicals before July 15, 1991?

Plain-English summary

San Jose Staff Tax Auditor Norman Jung found during an audit that a redacted university bought a hardbound, ten-volume Science Citation Index, 1945–1954—Ten Year Cumulation set from an out-of-state vendor for its physics library. The set was purchased separately from bimonthly paperback Science Citation Index volumes. The transactions preceded former section 6362's stated July 15, 1991 repeal.

The university argued that the cumulative set was a reference for the bimonthly volumes. Both products listed a subject, author, publication, volume, page, and year; the auditor did not know whether the indexed subject matter originally came from periodicals or books.

California treated the bimonthly Science Citation Index as a periodical. Although it was a reference index, it appeared at stated intervals, served an interested group, and had continuity and connection across issues.

The ten-year cumulative index was not a periodical because it was sold separately and was not issued as one of the series' volumes. Counsel distinguished Annotation 385.0280: an index volume could join a periodical series when it was itself one of the periodical's volumes, but that was not this set.

Source and live-annotation limits

The official PDF does not include the May 7 audit memorandum, books or indexes, any volume or issue, indexed source material, vendor or purchase records, library or university records, prices, invoices, sales or uses, returns, exemption documentation, tax calculations or payments, audit workpapers, assessment, claim, appeal, or later outcome. The university, vendor, personnel beyond the named Board staff, transactions, quantities beyond the ten-volume set, prices, and tax amounts are redacted or unidentified.

The source prints bi-monthly, sold completely separate, and describes the supporting audit memorandum but does not include it. The original-text section preserves the official wording.

The live annotation preserves the university purchase, out-of-state vendor, physics library, ten-volume separate set, bimonthly series, pre-July 15, 1991 timing, reference-index characterization, stated-interval and reader-group analysis, continuity and connection, results for both products, and opinion date. It omits the request and staff, audit posture and redactions, hardbound and paperback formats, university argument, indexed data fields and unknown source-material origin, former section 6362 and Regulation 1590, three cited annotations and their comparisons, missing records, source wording, and absent outcome.

What this means for you

Libraries, index publishers, and tax professionals

Document every issue and volume, format, recurring schedule, indexed content and sources, series relationship, marketing and sales terms, contracts, invoices and purchase dates, returns, exemption documents, tax calculations, and payments. Apply the law in effect on the transaction date.

Common questions

Q: Did a reference index contain qualifying information?

A: Yes. The bimonthly Science Citation Index qualified as a periodical.

Q: Did the ten-year cumulative set qualify?

A: No.

Q: Why did the cumulative set fail?

A: It was sold separately and was not one of the recurring periodical's volumes.

Q: What did the indexes list?

A: Both listed a subject, author, publication, volume, page, and year.

Q: Did the source show the books or the audit result?

A: No. It describes the products and classification question but includes neither the publications nor a later assessment or outcome.

Citations and references

• Former California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6362
• California Sales and Use Tax Regulation 1590
• California Sales and Use Tax Annotations 385.0060, 385.0280, and 385.0350
• May 7 audit memorandum, books and indexes, indexed source material, purchase and vendor records, tax records, and outcome — described or implicated but not documented

Verbatim support

From the official Senior Tax Counsel memorandum:

We believe that the bi-monthly “Science Citation Index” qualifies as a periodical.

We agree with your conclusion that the ten-year cumulative index does not qualify as a periodical. It is not issued as one of the series of periodicals. Rather, it is sold completely separate from the series of periodicals.

However, we do not believe the same result obtains when the index is not one of the volumes of the periodical.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Annotation page: Annotation 385.1882
• Original supporting opinion: 385.1882 PDF

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization
Legal Division

Memorandum
To

: Mr. Norman Jung
Staff Tax Auditor
San Jose District Office

From

: Ronald L. Dick
Senior Tax Counsel

385.1882
Date :

May 28, 1992

Subject : S--- U---

SR -- XX-XXXXXX

This is in reply to your May 7, 1992 memorandum regarding the application of use tax to the use of books purchased by S--- U---. You are currently auditing the University. You have discovered that the University purchased a set of books from an out-of-state vendor for the University library of physics. The books are titled “Science Citation Index, 1945 – 1954 – Ten Year Cumulation.” The set of books is hardbound and consists of ten volumes. The set of books was purchased separately from bi-monthly editions of paperback volumes titled “Science Citation Index.” The University has taken the position that the cumulative index is an exempt periodical. They argue that the ten-year index is a reference for the paperback volumes of the bi-monthly “Science Citation Index.” Both the paperback indexes and the cumulative index list a subject, author, publication, volume, page and year. You do not know whether the subject matter of the index was originally from periodicals or from books. Given this information, you asked our opinion as to whether the publications qualify as “periodicals” for purposes of Sales and Use Tax Regulation 1590. You note that the transactions occurred prior to the July 15, 1991 repeal of Revenue and Taxation Code section 6362. We believe that the bi-monthly “Science Citation Index” qualifies as a periodical. Although the publication is merely a reference index, we believe that it appears at stated intervals, and each issue contains information of general interest to some particular organization or group of persons. Each issue appears to bear a relationship to prior or subsequent issues with respect to continuity of literary character or similarity of subject matter. There is also a connection between the different issues in the nature of the material appearing in them. In so concluding, we noted Sales and Use Tax Annotation 385.0060 where the legal staff took the position that a computation of bowling league standing and scores of individual league members qualified as an exempt periodical. Also, under Annotation 385.0350, an index of off-market information in a multiple listing book qualified as news or information for purposes of determining whether such a publication qualifies as a periodical.

Mr. Norman Jung

-2-

May 28, 1992
385.1882

We agree with your conclusion that the ten-year cumulative index does not qualify as a periodical. It is not issued as one of the series of periodicals. Rather, it is sold completely separate from the series of periodicals. As you noted, Sales and Use Tax Annotation 385.0280 states that, if a periodical has issued a number of volumes in addition to an index volume, the index volume will be considered one of the volumes of the periodical. However, we do not believe the same result obtains when the index is not one of the volumes of the periodical. I appreciate your well-written memorandum requesting our opinion. Thank you. If all of the Board staff provided such a clear recitation of the facts and supporting arguments as you did, our job on the legal staff would be much easier.

RLD:sr
cc:

San Jose District Administrator