Could a portrait photographer exclude separately stated 'extra pose' charges from the taxable price of the portraits?

Plain-English summary

A portrait photographer's sample bill listed four 8-by-10 portraits at $16.50 with one negative included, one color charge at $4.50, and two extra poses at $3 each, for a $27 total. The separately labeled extra-pose amounts reimbursed negative-retouching charges plus added handling and recordkeeping; they did not buy the extra negatives.

The letter therefore treated the extra-pose amounts as overhead incurred to produce the taxable portraits. Separately stating those costs did not remove them from the portraits' taxable selling price.

Because the photographer did not sell the negatives, charges paid to retouchers for work on all negatives were taxable. The November 21 letter expressly superseded the Board's November 3 conclusion, which had assumed from an October 18 letter that the photographer sold every negative whenever more than one was needed and therefore treated that retouching as for resale.

The agency also rejected the photographer's double-tax argument. It described the negative as a production tool the photographer bought and might or might not use to make sold portraits, while the extra-pose reimbursement remained part of the portraits' selling price.

Source chronology and live annotation

The published source describes the photographer's October 18 and November 7 letters but does not reproduce them. The official November 3 letter supporting Annotation 420.0640 confirms the earlier assumption, cites sections 6006(b) and 6007, and supplies the conclusion later superseded. CDTFA separately publishes the November 21 letter as the supporting source for Annotation 420.0620; its extracted text is identical to 420.0100 except for the printed annotation number on the first line.

The record supplies no photographer identity, full correspondence, actual portrait order tied to the sample, photographs, negatives, retoucher invoice, proof of who retained each negative, return, tax amount, audit, assessment, refund or later outcome. Its final paragraph prints mayor may not where context indicates may or may not; the original text remains unchanged below.

The live 420.0100 annotation, in the 2026 revision of the Business Taxes Law Guide, retains separately stated extra-pose charges, retouching cost, overhead, portraits and taxable-gross-receipts conclusion. It substitutes extra sitting expenses for the source's additional expenses ... in handling and writing up information; the supporting letter never mentions a sitting expense. It omits the $27 sample bill, negative ownership, taxable retoucher charges, October-November chronology, superseded conclusion, double-tax argument, production-tool analysis, parallel 420.0620 source, missing records and absent applied outcome.

CDTFA's Annotated Legal Opinions collection says the letters are summarized as annotations and that statutory law controls whenever a statute and annotation conflict. The official two-page 420.0100 PDF has a clean native text layer and one small page-1 stencil used for letterhead rather than scanned text, so no OCR was required. Both fresh primary PDF downloads and both live-page downloads were byte-identical, duplicate default PDF text extractions matched, and the original-text section remains byte-identical to its committed version and fresh extraction after removal of only the extractor's terminal newline and form feed.

What this means for you

Portrait photographers and tax professionals

Separately labeling a customer charge does not determine its tax treatment. Document whether the customer actually buys a negative or whether the charge recovers the photographer's production costs. Also distinguish tax on a photographer's acquisition or processing of a retained production tool from tax measured by the finished portrait's full selling price.

Common questions

Q: What did the $6 extra-pose line buy?

A: On the clarified facts, it reimbursed retouching, handling and recordkeeping for two extra poses; it did not transfer the negatives.

Q: Why was the separately stated charge still taxable?

A: The letter treated it as overhead incurred to produce the taxable portraits and therefore part of their selling price.

Q: Were the retouchers' charges to the photographer taxable?

A: Yes. The photographer did not sell the negatives and therefore consumed the retouched production tools.

Q: What happened to the November 3 conclusion?

A: The November 21 letter expressly superseded it after the photographer clarified that the extra-pose charge did not represent a sale of negatives.

Q: Did the source establish an audit or amount of tax due?

A: No. Apart from the $27 sample billing, it supplies no invoices, return, tax computation, audit, assessment or final outcome.

Citations and references

• October 18 and November 7, 1967 photographer letters — described, with the later sample quoted, but not reproduced
• November 3, 1967 Tax Counsel letter supporting Annotation 420.0640 — official earlier source expressly superseded by the November 21 letter
• California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 6006(b) and 6007 — quoted in the November 3 letter, not the November 21 source
• November 21, 1967 source supporting Annotation 420.0620 — the same letter, differing only in the printed annotation number
• Correspondence, portraits, negatives, orders, retoucher invoices, returns, tax computations, audits, assessments and outcomes — described or implicated but not included

Verbatim support

From the official November 21, 1967 Tax Counsel letter:

In our opinion the charges which you label "extra poses" merely represent overhead costs which you incur in producing photographic portraits which you sell and do not represent charges for negatives which you sell.

Accordingly, such amounts are properly includable in the taxable selling price of the portraits.

Since you do not sell such negatives to the purchasers of photographic portraits, the amounts which you pay to the retouchers for retouching all of the negatives are subject to sales tax. In view of the foregoing, the conclusions stated in our letter of November 3 are superseded.

This is not the case. As a retailer of photographic portraits, you merely have made a specific charge to your customer for an expense which you incurred in the production of a tool which you purchased and which you mayor may not have used in the production of the photographic portraits which you sold.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Live annotation: Annotation 420.0100
• Original supporting opinion: 420.0100 PDF
• Superseded November 3 source: 420.0640 PDF
• Parallel November 21 source: 420.0620 PDF

Original ruling text

420.0100

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
November 21, 1967

Dear Mrs. X-----------------This is in regard to your letter of November 7 and ours of November 3 concerning the application of sales tax with respect to your receipts from sales of photographic portraits and charges made to you for retouching negatives. As we indicated in our letter of November 3, it was our understanding from your letter of October 18 that where more than one negative was required, you would charge your customer for all such negatives. It was, therefore, our opinion that you were the seller of such negatives and that the charges to you for retouching them were not taxable. In your letter of November 7 you included the following sample billing: Four 8x10’s at Color 1 at 4.50 2 extra poses at 3.00

16.50 (1 neg. included)
4.50
6.00
27.00

We understand from your letter of November 7 that the charges which you label "extra poses" are made for the purpose of reimbursing yourself for retouching charges made to you, as well as additional expenses which you incur in handling and writing up information pertaining to the extra poses. In our opinion the charges which you label "extra poses" merely represent overhead costs which you incur in producing photographic portraits which you sell and do not represent charges for negatives which you sell. Accordingly, such amounts are properly includable in the taxable selling price of the portraits. Since you do not sell such negatives to the purchasers of photographic portraits, the amounts which you pay to the retouchers for retouching all of the negatives are subject to sales tax. In view of the foregoing, the conclusions stated in our letter of November 3 are superseded. We understand from paragraph four of your letter of November 7 that it is your contention that by regarding the amounts charged for "extra poses" as part of the selling price of the portraits, the state is collecting sales tax twice for the same charge. This is not the case. As a retailer of photographic portraits, you merely have made a specific charge to your customer for an expense which you incurred in the production of a tool which you

purchased and which you mayor may not have used in the production of the photographic portraits which you sold. Very truly yours,

George A. Trigueros
Tax Counsel
GAT:mh [lb]