Did the historical ice exemption cover ice preserving fishermen's catch from grounds outside California territorial waters to in-state docks?

Plain-English summary

California said ice sold to Moss Landing fishermen would appear to qualify under the historical rule when it preserved fish assumed for human consumption while the catch traveled from fishing grounds outside California territorial waters to unloading docks within the state.

The result depended on both human-consumption purpose and the route between an outside-state point and an in-state point. The source supplies neither actual fishing grounds nor a completed trip or tax outcome.

Request, Ruling 60 conditions, assumptions, and missing transaction

The June 30 letter answers a May 16 request sent to the San Jose district office and referred for response. It does not state the request year, identify the seller or reproduce the request.

The seller described ice sold to fishermen at Moss Landing for preserving their catch from fishing grounds to California unloading docks. No fisherman, vessel, fish species, catch, ice, sale, quantity, price, fishing location, territorial boundary, route, dock or delivery is supplied.

Former Sales and Use Tax Ruling 60 reportedly exempted ice used in packing, shipping or transporting human-consumption food between points within and without California. The letter says a copy was enclosed, but the official PDF contains none and gives no ruling date or full text.

Associate Tax Counsel R. G. Hamlin expressly assumed the fish were for human consumption. On that assumption, sales would appear within Ruling 60 if the ice transported fish between grounds outside California territorial waters and in-state unloading docks. The source does not prove either condition or give an unconditional taxpayer-specific finding.

The live 400.0260 annotation states the conditional exemption for human-consumption fish traveling from beyond territorial waters to California docks. It omits Moss Landing, the human-consumption assumption and would appear posture, Ruling 60's missing enclosure, request and absent transaction record.

The official one-page PDF has a clean rendered text layer and only a small seal image. Two fresh downloads and extractions matched exactly, and the preserved source tail remains byte-identical after removal of only pdftotext's terminal newline and form feed. No case citation appears.

What this means for you

Commercial fishermen and ice sellers

Document the food use, fishing coordinates, applicable territorial boundary, vessel route, ice use and unloading dock before claiming this historical route-based treatment.

Accountants and tax professionals

Preserve contemporaneous sales, vessel, catch, delivery and exemption records. The missing Ruling 60 and conditional letter are not enough to establish current treatment.

Common questions

What did the ice preserve?

The fishermen's catch en route from fishing grounds to California unloading docks.

Where did the fishing grounds have to be?

Outside California territorial waters under the letter's condition. No actual coordinates are supplied.

Did the fish have to be for human consumption?

Yes. That fact was assumed rather than documented.

Was the source's conclusion unconditional?

No. It says the sales would appear exempt assuming human consumption and the specified route.

Is Ruling 60 included?

No. The letter calls it enclosed, but the official PDF contains only this response.

Was any exemption or tax amount finally determined?

The source gives no invoice, measure, rate, return, audit, assessment, payment or outcome.

Citations and references

• Former California Sales and Use Tax Ruling 60 — historical interstate food-shipping ice rule applied
• May 16 request — referenced but not included
• Seller and fishermen; fish and ice; vessels, fishing grounds and territorial boundary; routes, unloading docks and deliveries; invoices and prices; exemption records; tax measure and rate; return; audit; assessment; payment; claim; appeal; and outcome — described, assumed or implicated but not included

Verbatim support

From the official June 30, 1950 letter:

Assuming that the fish are to be used for human consumption, it would appear that your sales of ice to fishermen are within the scope of this ruling and exempt from the tax if the ice is used in transporting the fish between fishing grounds outside the territorial waters of this State and unloading docks within this State.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Live annotation: Annotation 400.0260
• Original supporting opinion: 400.0260 PDF

Original ruling text

400.0260

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

June 30, 1950

Gentlemen:
This is in answer to your letter of May 16, addressed to our San Jose district office, with respect to the application of the State sales tax to your sales of ice to fishermen at Moss Landing for use in preserving their catch enroute from the fishing grounds to the unloading docks in this State, which has been referred to this office for attention. As indicated by Sales and Use Tax Ruling 60, copy enclosed, the tax does not apply to sales of ice used or employed in packing and shipping or transporting food products for human consumption between a point or points within and a point or points without this State. Assuming that the fish are to be used for human consumption, it would appear that your sales of ice to fishermen are within the scope of this ruling and exempt from the tax if the ice is used in transporting the fish between fishing grounds outside the territorial waters of this State and unloading docks within this State. Very truly yours,

R.G. Hamlin
Associate Tax Counsel
RGH:HB