Were separately stated tinting charges taxable when the same photo finisher also printed the customer's pictures?

Plain-English summary

The missing inquiry gave a 79-cent example: 15 cents for developing negatives plus 64 cents for eight prints at 8 cents each. Under historical Ruling 23, separately stated negative-development charges were nontaxable while print charges were taxable, so Counsel applied tax only to the 64-cent print component. If development and print charges were not separated, tax applied to the full amount.

Tinting or coloring customer-furnished finished pictures was nontaxable. But when the same finisher printed or enlarged the pictures and then tinted them, the tinting charge remained part of the taxable sale even if separately stated.

Live annotation and source posture

The current live annotation preserves the core distinction between a finisher tinting customer-furnished finished pictures and one that also prints the pictures, plus the no-deduction rule for separately stated tinting and the April 8, 1952 date. It omits the March 6 inquiry, 79-cent total, 15-cent development component, eight prints at 8 cents, 64-cent taxable print component, unsegregated-charge rule, enlargements, Ruling 23 and missing enclosure.

The supporting PDF supplies no copy of the March 6 inquiry, requester or finisher identity, negative, customer-furnished finished picture, print, enlargement, tinting work, 79-cent invoice, eight-print quantity, itemization, payment, sales-tax reimbursement, tax return, audit, assessment, refund or later result. It says a copy of Ruling 23 was enclosed, but that enclosure is absent from the one-page PDF. The letter thus states how Counsel would treat the reported examples without documenting an applied taxpayer outcome.

CDTFA's Annotated Legal Opinions collection says letters are summarized as annotations and that statutory law controls whenever a statute and annotation conflict. The official PDF has a clean native text layer and one small page-one letterhead stencil rather than scanned text, so no OCR was required. The visual source confirms the extraction's ambiguous l5¢ is 15 cents. 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 the fresh extraction after removal of only the extractor's terminal newline and form feed.

What this means for you

Itemize negative development separately from taxable prints, and distinguish a customer's already finished picture from a picture or enlargement your business makes and sells. Under this letter, separately stating tinting did not create a deduction when the same finisher made the taxable output.

Common questions

Q: How much of the 79-cent example did Counsel treat as taxable?

A: The 64 cents charged for eight prints. The separately stated 15-cent negative-development charge was nontaxable under the cited historical ruling.

Q: What if development and printing were not separately stated?

A: The letter said tax applied to the full charge.

Q: When was tinting nontaxable?

A: When the customer furnished the finished pictures to the finisher for tinting or coloring.

Q: Did separately stating tinting help when the finisher also made the prints or enlargements?

A: No. The full printing or enlargement charge remained taxable without a tinting deduction.

Citations and references

• Historical California Sales and Use Taxes Ruling 23(B)
• March 6 inquiry, requester and transaction evidence, pictures, invoice, itemization, tax filings and outcome — implicated but absent

Verbatim support

From the official April 8, 1952 Tax Counsel letter:

As indicated by Section B of Sales and Use Tax Ruling 23, copy enclosed, the tax does not apply to separately stated charges for developing negatives.

However, if such charges are not segregated from charges for printing pictures, the tax applies to the full charge.

As also indicated by said ruling, the tax does not apply to charges for tinting or coloring pictures furnished to the finisher by the customer.

However, where you print pictures for a customer and are not merely coloring pictures finished by him the tax applies to the full charge for the printing of the pictures or for the making of enlargements without deduction for charges for tinting or coloring the pictures sold, whether such charges are separately stated or not.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Live annotation: Annotation 420.0420
• Original supporting opinion: 420.0420 PDF

Original ruling text

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

420.0420

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
April 8, 1952
Dear Mr. X---------------:
This is in answer to your letter of March 6 in which you request information relating to the application of the California sales tax to photo finishing work. You cite an example wherein a total charge of 79¢ is made which is itemized into a l5¢ charge for developing negatives and a 64¢ charge for eight prints at 8¢ a print. As indicated by Section B of Sales and Use Tax Ruling 23, copy enclosed, the tax does not apply to separately stated charges for developing negatives. However, if such charges are not segregated from charges for printing pictures, the tax applies to the full charge. Accordingly, it would appear that the tax would only apply in your example to the 64¢ charge. As also indicated by said ruling, the tax does not apply to charges for tinting or coloring pictures furnished to the finisher by the customer. However, where you print pictures for a customer and are not merely coloring pictures finished by him the tax applies to the full charge for the printing of the pictures or for the making of enlargements without deduction for charges for tinting or coloring the pictures sold, whether such charges are separately stated or not. If you have any further questions relating to this matter we shall be happy to endeavor to answer them or you might contact a representative of our district office at 200 State Building, San Francisco 2, California, Underhill 18700. Very truly yours, E. H. Stetson, Tax Counsel WWM:ja