Were custom Landsat mosaics taxable tangible personal property when technicians registered, overlapped, spliced, and enhanced satellite scenes?

Plain-English summary

An Oakland auditor asked about a taxpayer's Landsat and radar work. The taxpayer bought government or other-source satellite pictures, from which a machine generated unenhanced negatives, prints or digital tapes, then hired vendors to customize, photographically and digitally enhance, and mosaic the products. The memorandum said California use of the initial products was taxable except when bought from the federal government under section 6402.

The taxpayer's geologist described skilled technicians registering Landsat scenes to a known map projection, overlapping shared surface features, splicing scenes into one or more larger sheets, and doing substantial darkroom work. Individual scenes could also be enhanced with digital computers, sophisticated color plotters and darkroom equipment. The taxpayer said work was individually specified and not off the shelf; the auditor disputed that characterization for at least some items.

Tax Counsel analogized the Landsat work to Annotation 420.0040's noncontrolled mosaics: visual representations assembled from contiguous images rather than precisely engineered photomaps presenting exact engineering data. On that description, the vendor made a taxable sale of tangible personal property. Custom specifications, considerable cost and technical expertise did not by themselves establish professional engineering services.

The same taxable fabrication result applied under section 6006(b) when the taxpayer supplied the maps being spliced. The memorandum invited additional facts showing substantial professional engineering involvement. If an original contract genuinely involved engineering services, the vendor could be the consumer of maps furnished under that contract; reproductions ordered later, or sales to another party or off the shelf, remained taxable.

The official annotation metadata says March 16, 1989, but the complete supporting memorandum is dated March 6, 1989. This page follows the source document's date.

Source posture and live annotation

The March 6 memorandum answers a February 3 auditor memorandum and quotes substantial portions of a taxpayer geologist's memorandum, but neither underlying document is included. Tax Counsel says the supplied materials do not make the transaction sequence entirely clear, resolves that the taxpayer's supposed three work types are actually two, and analyzes both Landsat mosaics and radar images. CDTFA separately publishes the same substantive body through the official source for Annotation 420.0179; that PDF uses a different annotation number, header order and redaction length.

The record supplies no taxpayer or vendor identity, satellite product, scene, mosaic, map, digital tape, specification, geologist credentials, engineering plan or computation, contract, service order, invoice, dollar amount for Landsat work, audit measure, assessment or later outcome. The source prints Rev. & Tax. Code S 6006(b); this page preserves that defect in the original text and identifies the intended section only from the printed number and context.

The live 420.0130 annotation, in the 2026 revision of the Business Taxes Law Guide, retains satellite imagery, technicians, map registration, overlap, splicing, regional planning, customer specifications, noncontrolled-mosaic comparison and tangible-property conclusion. It says as fact that all work was to customer specifications even though the source records the auditor's contrary belief that some products were general offerings. It says the work does not involve a professional engineer, while the memorandum says the described expertise does not appear to be professional engineering and requests further substantial-engineering facts. The live date is March 16; the source document is March 6. It omits initial-product use tax, unclear facts, two-versus-three-work-type issue, enhancement equipment, customer-furnished maps, original-contract exception, later reproductions, radar analysis and absent records or outcome.

The current live 420.0040 authority preserves the controlled-photomap, engineering-service, noncontrolled-mosaic and reproduction distinctions the 1989 memorandum quotes; it also carries a later September 24, 1991 layer that the 1989 source could not have relied on. No later-layer fact is imported into this transaction.

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 three-page PDF has a clean native text layer and no embedded images, so no OCR was required. Both fresh direct 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

Imagery vendors, planners and tax professionals

Custom work, skilled technicians and high cost do not alone establish a nontaxable professional service. Document the precise engineering work, control framework, deliverables and original contract. Separately classify customer-furnished-material fabrication, later reproductions and general products, and do not treat disputed specifications as settled facts.

Common questions

Q: Why were the Landsat mosaics taxable on the stated facts?

A: The memorandum treated them as visual noncontrolled mosaics rather than precisely engineered photomaps and found no shown substantial professional engineering service.

Q: Did custom specifications make the work nontaxable?

A: No. The source said even custom orders were taxable on its understanding of the work, and section 6006(b) produced the same result when the customer supplied maps.

Q: Did the source categorically rule out engineering services?

A: No. It said the described expertise did not appear to be professional engineering and invited more facts showing substantial involvement.

Q: Could an original engineering contract change the result?

A: Potentially. Maps furnished under an original professional-engineering contract could be treated as consumed by the service provider; later or off-the-shelf reproductions remained taxable under the stated distinction.

Q: Which issue date is grounded in the source?

A: March 6, 1989 appears in the full memorandum. The live annotation prints March 16 without explaining the conflict.

Q: Did the source establish an audit result?

A: No. It supplies no audit measure, assessment, taxpayer response or final outcome.

Citations and references

• California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6006(b) — cited for fabrication of customer-furnished maps
• California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6402 — cited for the federal-government purchase distinction
• Business Taxes Law Guide Annotation 420.0040 (Sept. 26, 1972 and Dec. 31, 1973 source layers) — quoted for aerial photographs, engineering surveys, mosaics and reproductions
• February 3, 1989 auditor memorandum and taxpayer geologist memorandum — described and quoted in part but not reproduced
• Official Annotation 420.0179 source — parallel publication of the same substantive Landsat and radar analysis
• Products, maps, specifications, engineering records, contracts, service orders, invoices, audit measure, assessment and outcome — described or implicated but not included

Verbatim support

From the official March 6, 1989 Tax Counsel memorandum:

Although it is not entirely clear from your memorandum and the materials you have supplied, it appears that taxpayer first purchases the products mentioned above from the government or X-------------, and then contracts to have the work done on those products about which you inquire.

This appears to be the same description as supplied by the taxpayer with respect to Landsat mosaics. We therefore conclude that the vendor is making a taxable sale of tangible personal property when performing this work.

We reach the same conclusion even if the taxpayer supplies the maps which are spliced together. (Rev. & Tax. Code S 6006(b).)

If, however, some of the custom work does involve what we would regard as the providing of a service because of the professional engineering services involved, the last paragraph of the annotation would control.

If you find other facts showing that there actually is substantial involvement of professional engineering services and would like us to review those facts, or if you have other questions, feel free to write again.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Live annotation: Annotation 420.0130
• Original supporting opinion: 420.0130 PDF
• Quoted live authority: Annotation 420.0040
• Parallel radar source: 420.0179 PDF

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

Mr. Stan Rose
Oakland Auditing

From:

David H. Levine
Tax Counsel

Subject:

X-------------------------------

420.0130

Date:

March 6, 1989

916-445-5550
ATSS 485-5550

This is in response to your memorandum dated February 3, 1989 regarding the application of sales tax to X------------------------, Landsat Images and Radar Imagery. Landsat is a remote sensing satellite which produces pictures of the earth's surface. The taxpayer states that when it purchases these pictures from the government or X---------- the images are run through a machine and unenhanced negatives, prints, or digital tapes are generated. You ask how tax applies to three types of transactions. Although it is not entirely clear from your memorandum and the materials you have supplied, it appears that taxpayer first purchases the products mentioned above from the government or X-------------, and then contracts to have the work done on those products about which you inquire. Except when these products are purchased from the federal government, their use in California would be subject to use tax. (See Rev. & Tax. Code § 6402.) You state that there are three types of work performed upon these products. Taxpayer has supplied a memorandum on this subject from one of its geologists. Taxpayer states that it contracts with vendors for their services and technical expertise to customize, photographically and digitally enhance, and mosaic basic Landsat products. Taxpayer states that each enhanced product requires individual work and that they are not pulled off the shelf for delivery to taxpayer. Although your memorandum indicates that this description is one of the three types of transactions, from taxpayer's memorandum it appears that this is but a summary of the two types of work performed on these products, Landsat mosaics and radar images. Thus, my analysis pertains to two types of work and not three. Taxpayer describes these as follows: “LANDSAT MOSAICS “Landsat mosaics are constructed by skilled technicians registering the individual scenes to a known map projection. They carefully overlap the scenes so that features seen on the earth's surface form a much larger, continuous image. They splice all of the scenes

together, combining them into one or more sheets. Mosaics show a much larger area of the earth and are a necessity for regional planning. “We either order mosaics to be constructed, or we ask vendors to deliver specific areas/sizes/color combinations from their pre-existing mosaic negatives. All of the work is done to our specifications and the costs are considerable. Much photographic darkroom work is involved with Landsat mosaics after the mosaics are constructed. We are paying for technical services and expertise when ordering Landsat mosaics. “In addition to mosaics, individual Landsat scenes can be ‘enhanced’ by outside vendors. This enhancement greatly increases the value to the basic product to X------------------. It involves utilization of digital computers, sophisticated color plotters, and extensive darkroom equipment. “RADAR IMAGES “Radar images are also improved when enhanced or mosaicked. X--------------- has proprietary radar data sets with X-------------. Two of these sets are wholly owned by X------------ does custom radar printing and mosaicking of individual flight strips. Their mosaics are of a higher precision than Landsat mosaics and they take a month to construct. For their services and enhancement of basic radar products (digitally plotted film positives), X------------------ receives the best possible customized product. It costs several thousands of dollars for their custom processing, dodging, printing, and mosaicking of radar films. These products are not available off-the shelf. We are paying for these services with Service Orders.” DISCUSSION Taxpayer asserts that these transactions are not subject to tax based on BTLG Annotation 420.0040 (9/26/72, 12/31/73). The conclusion in that annotation was that the gross receipts from the sale of aerial photographs are subject to tax with no deduction for flight costs, photographer’s time, material, etc. On the other hand, charges for an aerial survey would not be subject to tax when that survey is a professional undertaking employing precise engineering procedures and resulting in precise engineering reports or maps such as photomaps, planametric maps, topographic maps, magnetic maps, and gravimetric maps. Such surveys would be regarded as services with the provider being regarded as the consumer of any materials used or incidentally transferred. With respect to mosaics, the annotation states: “Mosaics (non controlled) are made by assembling vertical aerial photographs of approximately the same scale representing contiguous areas, matched at common points. The composite photograph of such assemblies is called a mosaic or noncontrolled mosaic. It is distinguished from a photomap in that the mosaic is not precisely engineered and is intended as a visual representation of the area rather than a presentation of exact engineering data. Gross receipts for furnishing mosaics are receipts from the sale of tangible personal property.”

This appears to be the same description as supplied by the taxpayer with respect to Landsat mosaics. We therefore conclude that the vendor is making a taxable sale of tangible personal property when performing this work. We reach the same conclusion even if the taxpayer supplies the maps which are spliced together. (Rev. & Tax. Code S 6006(b).) We reached the same conclusion with respect to radar images as described by the taxpayer. Although this description indicates that certain technical expertise is required to fabricate these mosaics, that technical expertise does not appear to be professional engineering services. This appears to come within the taxable result of the annotation as quoted above. In your memorandum, you indicate that despite taxpayer's statements, you believe that some of the work asserted to be custom work is not done pursuant to taxpayer's specific instruction but rather are more of a general product available for sale to anyone who wishes to purchase it. If our understanding of the facts is correct, then such sales to taxpayer would be subject to tax since even sales pursuant to a custom order would be subject to tax. If, however, some of the custom work does involve what we would regard as the providing of a service because of the professional engineering services involved, the last paragraph of the annotation would control. Thus, the vendor would be the consumer of the maps only if such reproductions are furnished pursuant to an original contract involving engineering services. If the party originally ordering the custom work ordered reproductions not as part of the original contract, or if sales are made to any other party (such as off the shelf), those sales would be subject to tax. If you find other facts showing that there actually is substantial involvement of professional engineering services and would like us to review those facts, or if you have other questions, feel free to write again.

DHL/smt