What x-ray film did a 1964 California letter recommend removing from the tax measure in a welded-tubing protest?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1964. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.
Plain-English summary
After a preliminary hearing, the October 13, 1964 letter recommended redetermining the protested liability and removing from the tax measure x-ray film sold with welded tubing when the customer specifically ordered the film.
The recommendation did not cover every film transfer connected with the tubing business. The source treated film sold with tubing at retail as taxable and also treated film the taxpayer consumed to determine job set-ups as taxable.
The source records only the recommendation for redetermination. It does not state whether the Board later adopted the recommendation or otherwise entered a final decision.
Live annotation and source posture
The current live annotation describes film purchased for resale, exposed and identified with specific welded-tubing footage used in missile and aircraft construction, and sold with tubing for resale under specific customer orders. The one-page supporting letter itself states only that specifically ordered film was sold with welded tubing. It does not mention a resale purchase, exposure, footage identification, missile or aircraft construction, or the tubing buyer's resale.
Those additional facts are grounded in the official live annotation but not in the supporting letter's evidentiary record. This page therefore identifies them as live-annotation additions rather than using them to enlarge the narrower source recommendation. The live page also describes the result as no use tax, while the letter speaks more generally of excluding the film from the tax measure.
The source refers to a preliminary hearing and a redacted account, visibly printing Sand Diego. It supplies no hearing date, petition, taxpayer or customer identity, order, invoice, x-ray film, welded tubing, setup record, audit workpaper, protested tax amount, resale document, redetermination computation, Board vote, final notice, payment or refund outcome.
CDTFA's Annotated Legal Opinions collection says these documents are summarized as annotations and statutory law controls over an inconsistent annotation. The official PDF has a clean native text layer and one page-one letterhead stencil, so no OCR was required. Two fresh direct PDF downloads and two live-page downloads were byte-identical; duplicate default text extractions also matched.
What this means for you
Keep customer orders and distinguish transferred film from film consumed in production planning. The source recommendation depended on a specific customer order and did not exclude setup film or film accompanying a retail tubing sale. The live page supplies more facts, but the hearing record needed to test them is unavailable.
Common questions
Q: What film did the letter recommend excluding?
A: X-ray film sold with welded tubing when the customer specifically ordered the film.
Q: What film did the source treat as taxable?
A: Film sold with tubing at retail and film the taxpayer consumed to determine job setups.
Q: Does the supporting letter mention missile or aircraft construction?
A: No. Those facts appear on the current live annotation, not in the one-page letter.
Q: Was the protested liability finally redetermined?
A: The source does not say. It supplies only counsel's recommendation.
Missing evidence and references
- Preliminary-hearing date, petition, transcript and exhibits — absent
- Taxpayer, account, customer and project identities — redacted or absent
- Customer orders, invoices and resale records — absent
- X-ray film, welded tubing and setup records — absent
- Audit measure, redetermination computation and final Board action — not supplied
Verbatim support
From the official October 13, 1964 Associate Tax Counsel letter:
We wish to advise you that we are recommending a redetermination of the tax liability under protest.
Said redetermination to exclude from the measure of tax X-ray film sold with welded tubing where the film has been specifically ordered by the customer.
Film sold with tubing at retail and film self-consumed by use in determining job “set-ups” will be considered subject to tax.
Source
- Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
- Live annotation: Annotation 420.0700
- Original supporting opinion: 420.0700 PDF
Original ruling text
420.0700
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
October 13, 1964
Mr. X----------------------,
This is with reference to the preliminary hearing held in Sand Diego on the X-------------- account. We wish to advise you that we are recommending a redetermination of the tax liability under protest. Said redetermination to exclude from the measure of tax X-ray film sold with welded tubing where the film has been specifically ordered by the customer. Film sold with tubing at retail and film self-consumed by use in determining job “set-ups” will be considered subject to tax. Very truly yours, Robert H. Anderson Associate Tax Counsel RHA:mm
What does the law say today, for your facts?
This ruling is from 1964. Ezel checks current California tax law against your situation and cites the authority it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace