Could California require the University of Minnesota Press to register as an in-state retailer and collect use tax from California customers?

Plain-English summary

The Out-of-State District asked whether the University of Minnesota Press was a section 6203 retailer engaged in California business and therefore had to register and collect use tax from customers. The March 8 request and facts about California contacts or sales are absent.

The Legal Division reasoned that a section 6015 retailer first had to be a section 6005 person. It described California's longstanding administrative position as excluding states other than California from section 6005.

The memorandum relied on an unnamed federal case involving whether the Press was a corporation under the Clayton Anti-Trust Law. The reporter 107 F. Supp. 439 resolves to Reid v. University of Minnesota. It held that the Regents were a constitutional corporation carrying out state purposes, their acts were Minnesota's acts, and the Press as their creature was a Minnesota agency.

California therefore concluded the Press was not a section 6005 person, could not be a section 6015 retailer, and was not a section 6203 retailer engaged in California business. It could not be required to register and collect use tax from customers buying property for California use. The source supplies no application, denial, customer transactions, audit or later outcome.

Source posture and later use

The live 415.0180 annotation, in the 2026 revision of the Business Taxes Law Guide, preserves the Press's Minnesota-agency status, no-person conclusion and no-section-6203-retailer result. It omits the registration and customer-collection question, sections 6015 and 6203 reasoning, administrative-position characterization, federal case and quoted holding, missing records and absent outcome.

A later August 23, 1994 opinion supporting Annotation 415.0108 quoted 415.0180 while treating a company's purchase from Utah as a nontaxable transfer. That later opinion does not add facts about the Press's California activity or collection outcome.

CDTFA's Annotated Legal Opinions collection says statutory law controls over an inconsistent annotation. The official one-page PDF has a clean native text layer and no raster images, so no OCR was required. It prints Section 6015 pf the ;aw. The retailer; that source defect remains verbatim. Duplicate direct downloads and extractions matched, and the original-text tail remains byte-identical to the committed tail and fresh extraction after removing only terminal extractor whitespace.

What this means for you

Government publishers and tax professionals

Entity status came before collection analysis in this historical memorandum. Verify the public unit's present legal status and then apply current person, retailer, nexus, marketplace, registration and collection rules; do not treat the 1967 administrative position as self-updating.

Common questions

Q: Why was the Press not a retailer?

A: The federal decision treated it as a Minnesota agency, and the memorandum said California's administrative position excluded sister states from section 6005.

Q: Could California require the Press to register and collect use tax?

A: No under the 1967 analysis. The source supplies no later registration proceeding or outcome.

Q: What established the Press's agency status?

A: The memorandum relied on the federal decision reported at 107 F. Supp. 439, which resolves to Reid v. University of Minnesota.

Q: Did the source document the Press's California sales or contacts?

A: No. The request, orders, shipments, customers, activities and collection records are absent.

Citations and references

• California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 6005, 6015 and 6203
• Reid v. University of Minnesota, 107 F. Supp. 439 — reporter verified; case name omitted by the source
• March 8 request; Press organization records; California sales, customers, orders, shipments and contacts; registration; returns; collection records; audit; and outcome — absent

Verbatim support

From the official May 18, 1967 Legal Division memorandum:

It has been our long standing administrative position that a state other than California is not a person within the meaning of Sec. 6005.

The University of Minnesota Press, being a creature of the Regents of the University of Minnesota is, therefore, an agency of the State of Minnesota and the acts of the Press are the acts of the State of Minnesota.

Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the University of Minnesota Press is not a retailer engaged in business in this state under Section 6203 and, for that reason, cannot be required to register and collect use tax from its customers who purchase property for use in this state.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Live annotation: Annotation 415.0180
• Original supporting memorandum: 415.0180 PDF
• Later quotation: 415.0108 PDF

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization
Legal Division

Memorandum

To:

Out-of-State – District Administrator (ABG)

From:

Tax Counsel (EDM)

415.0180
Date:

May 18, 1967

We regret our delay in replying to your memo of March 8, 1967 in which you ask our opinion on whether the University of Minnesota Press is a “retailer engaged in business in this state” under Section 6203 of the Sales and Use Tax Law, and as such required to register with this Board and collect use tax from its customers. As you know, in order to be a retailer under Section 6015 pf the ;aw. The retailer must be a “person” as defined in Section 6005 of the law. It has been our long standing administrative position that a state other than California is not a person within the meaning of Sec. 6005. Our research of the University of Minnesota Press disclosed that it is an agency of the State of Minnesota. In a federal case involving this particular organization, the court was asked to determine whether the defendant (University of Minnesota Press) was a corporation in violation of the Clayton Anti-Trust Law. While the court did not answer the question whether the Clayton Act was violated, it did hold that the defendant “Press” was not a corporate person, but rather an agent of the state. The court said on page 442: “The ‘Regents of the University of Minnesota’ is a constitutional corporation created to carry out State purposes and the acts of the Regents are, therefore, the acts of the State of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota Press, being a creature of the Regents of the University of Minnesota is, therefore, an agency of the State of Minnesota and the acts of the Press are the acts of the State of Minnesota.” (107 F. Supp. 439.) (Emphasis added.) Inasmuch as the University of Minnesota Press is an agent of the University of Minnesota and the latter an integral part of the State of Minnesota, it would appear that the University of Minnesota Press is not a “person” within the meaning of Section 6005 of the law and, therefore, could not be regarded as a retailer under Section 6015 of the Sales and Use Tax Law. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the University of Minnesota Press is not a retailer engaged in business in this state under Section 6203 and, for that reason, cannot be required to register and collect use tax from its customers who purchase property for use in this state.

EDM:lt

[1b]