Did a 1951 California letter apply the diagnostic x-ray producer rule to industrial radiographs used to inspect metals?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1951. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The October 22, 1951 letter interpreted chapter 798, Statutes of 1951, effective June 1, which added section 6019 to the Sales and Use Tax Law. It limited the quoted diagnostic x-ray producer rule to films made to diagnose conditions of the human body and did not extend it to films produced for metal inspection or similar industrial purposes.
An industrial x-ray laboratory furnishing radiographs for inspection was a retailer and owed sales tax measured by their retail selling price. A contract for an x-ray inspection service was nontaxable when no title to radiographs transferred.
The requester had not provided enough facts to determine which category applied. The letter expressly declined to decide whether the requester sold radiographs or performed a no-transfer inspection service and invited a typical contract for a later opinion.
Live annotation and source posture
The current live annotation accurately preserves the human-diagnosis limitation, industrial-radiograph retail sale, retail selling-price measure, and no-title-transfer service branch. It does not disclose that the agency could not classify the requester's own operations and requested a sample contract.
The live page attributes the quoted producer rule to section 6020. The official 1951 letter identifies it as section 6019 added by chapter 798. The source supplies no renumbering history, so this page preserves each official document's section number rather than silently substituting one for the other.
The letter answers an August 25 inquiry but does not print the inquiry's year. The salutation is only Gentlemen, and no requester identity, customer, metal, industrial purpose, radiograph, inspection method, title term, contract, sales price, invoice, return, audit, assessment, refund, follow-up submission or applied outcome is supplied.
CDTFA's Annotated Legal Opinions collection says these letters are summarized as annotations and statutory law controls over an inconsistent annotation. The one-page PDF has a native text layer and 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
Identify the promised deliverable and title terms. Under this historical letter, supplying industrial radiographs was a taxable retail sale, while a no-title-transfer inspection service was not. The agency would not decide the requester's own treatment without seeing the contract.
Common questions
Q: Did the 1951 diagnostic-image rule cover metal inspection?
A: No. The letter limited it to x-rays produced to diagnose conditions of the human body.
Q: What was taxable in the industrial setting?
A: A laboratory's furnishing of radiographs, measured by their retail selling price.
Q: What inspection service was nontaxable?
A: A contract to perform x-ray inspection without transferring title to radiographs.
Q: Which category applied to the requester?
A: The letter could not tell from the inquiry and asked for a typical contract.
Missing evidence and references
- August 25 inquiry and its year — absent or unspecified
- Requester and customer identities — absent
- Typical contract and title-transfer provisions — absent
- Radiographs, inspection records, prices and invoices — absent
- Returns, audits, assessments, refunds and follow-up outcome — not supplied
Verbatim support
From the official October 22, 1951 Tax Counsel letter:
“Producers of X-ray films for the purpose of diagnosis are the consumers of materials and supplies used in the production thereof” refers to X-ray films produced for the diagnosis of conditions of the human body and does not relate to X-ray films produced for the inspection of metals and other similar purposes.
Accordingly, when X-ray laboratories furnish radiographs for such purposes of inspection, it is our opinion that the laboratory is the retailer and liable for payment of sales tax measured by the retail selling price of the radiographs.
Of course, if a laboratory enters into a contract for the furnishing of an X-ray inspection service, there being no transfer of title to radiographs involved, charges for the performance of such an inspection service would not be taxable.
We cannot determine from your letter whether you are engaged in such an inspection service or whether you are selling radiographs.
Citations and references
- Historical California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6019, added by Chapter 798, Statutes of 1951
- Current live Annotation 420.0720 identifies the quoted provision as section 6020
Source
- Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
- Live annotation: Annotation 420.0720
- Original supporting opinion: 420.0720 PDF
Original ruling text
420.0720
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
October 22, 1951
Gentlemen:
In answer to your letter of August 25, we advise that, in our opinion, the provisions of Chapter 798, Statutes of 1951, effective June 1, adding to the Sales and Use Tax Law Section 6019 stating that, "Producers of X-ray films for the purpose of diagnosis are the consumers of materials and supplies used in the production thereof" refers to X-ray films produced for the diagnosis of conditions of the human body and does not relate to X-ray films produced for the inspection of metals and other similar purposes. Accordingly, when X-ray laboratories furnish radiographs for such purposes of inspection, it is our opinion that the laboratory is the retailer and liable for payment of sales tax measured by the retail selling price of the radiographs. Of course, if a laboratory enters into a contract for the furnishing of an X-ray inspection service, there being no transfer of title to radiographs involved, charges for the performance of such an inspection service would not be taxable. We cannot determine from your letter whether you are engaged in such an inspection service or whether you are selling radiographs. If you wish us to give you our opinion in this regard, we suggest that you forward to us a typical contract under which you carry on the operations referred to in your letter. Very truly yours,
E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel
What does the law say today, for your facts?
This ruling is from 1951. 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