Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Did a chiropractic license make a chiropractor-naturopath a `physician and surgeon` under a 1964 California ruling?

Short answer No. The letter limited that historical term to a person holding a valid, unrevoked physician's-and-surgeon's certificate or medicine-and-surgery certificate from one of two specified California examining boards. It did not analyze any separate naturopath credential, product, prescription, or sale.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 425.0020
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1964-10-06
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A requester asking whether a chiropractor-naturopath was a physician and surgeon under Ruling 22
Topics
chiropractors
Source
View Original PDF

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.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1964
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is an October 6, 1964 California State Board of Equalization Tax Counsel letter published by CDTFA to support an annotation. Documents it refers to, such as the request or supporting records, are not published with it. It interprets `physician and surgeon` only for paragraph F of historical Ruling 22 and says a chiropractic license did not satisfy the specified certificate requirement. CDTFA's current annotation 425.0020 adds section 6369, which the letter does not cite. Current licensing, prescribing and tax law controls. Another taxpayer should not treat it as binding. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ruling (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The October 6, 1964 letter answered whether a chiropractor-naturopath was a physician and surgeon within paragraph F of historical Ruling 22. It did not describe the person's naturopath credential or rely on it.

The letter interpreted the term as a person holding a valid, unrevoked physician's-and-surgeon's certificate or certificate to practice medicine and surgery issued by California's Board of Medical Examiners or Board of Osteopathic Examiners. A license to practice chiropractic did not meet that definition.

Live annotation and source posture

The current live annotation accurately preserves the conclusion and date but says the term is used in section 6369. The official supporting letter refers only to paragraph F of Ruling 22 and never cites section 6369. This page records the live cross-reference without attributing it to the 1964 letter.

The source decides only professional-status terminology. It does not identify a medicine, product, patient, prescription, sale, exemption claim, seller's permit, return, audit, assessment, refund or applied tax consequence. It also does not state what license or scope, if any, supported the naturopath label.

The letter answers a September 25 inquiry but does not print that inquiry's year. The requester is redacted. It is signed in E. H. Stetson's name By Philip R. Dougherty, but supplies no title for Dougherty or explanation of the signature arrangement.

CDTFA's Annotated Legal Opinions collection says these letters are summarized as annotations and statutory law controls over an inconsistent annotation. The official one-page PDF has native text and one page-one letterhead image, 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

Do not infer physician-and-surgeon status from another professional license or a compound title. Verify the precise current credential, issuing board, scope, prescribing authority, and tax provision that uses the term.

Common questions

Q: Was a chiropractic license enough?

A: No.

Q: What credentials did the letter require for the historical term?

A: A valid, unrevoked physician's-and-surgeon's or medicine-and-surgery certificate issued by one of the boards identified in the letter.

Q: Did the letter analyze a naturopath license?

A: No. It uses the compound label but describes only a chiropractic license.

Q: Did the supporting letter cite section 6369?

A: No. That cross-reference appears on the current live annotation.

Missing evidence and references

  • September 25 inquiry and its year — absent or unspecified
  • Requester and practitioner identities — redacted
  • Chiropractic and any naturopath licenses — absent
  • Medical or osteopathic certificates — absent
  • Products, prescriptions, patients and sales — absent
  • Returns, audits, assessments, refunds and outcomes — not supplied

Verbatim support

From the official October 6, 1964 Tax Counsel letter:

The term “physician and surgeon” is interpreted as meaning a person holding a valid and unrevoked physician’s and surgeon’s certificate or certificate to practice medicine and surgery issued by the Board of Medical Examiners or the board of Osteopathic Examiners of this State.

Thus, a person holding a license to practice chiropractic does not come within the meaning of “physician and surgeon” as it is used in paragraph F of the ruling.

Citations and references

  • Historical California Board of Equalization Ruling 22, paragraph F — “physician and surgeon” term interpreted in the letter
  • Current live Annotation 425.0020 identifies section 6369; the source letter does not

Source

Original ruling text

425.0020

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

October 6, 1964

Mr. H--- E--XXXX --- --- Boulevard
--- --- XX, California
Dear Mr. E---:
This is in reply to your letter of September 25 in which you inquire whether a chiropractornaturopath is a “physician and surgeon” within the meaning of paragraph F of ruling 22.
The term “physician and surgeon” is interpreted as meaning a person holding a valid and
unrevoked physician’s and surgeon’s certificate or certificate to practice medicine and surgery
issued by the Board of Medical Examiners or the board of Osteopathic Examiners of this State.
Thus, a person holding a license to practice chiropractic does not come within the meaning of
“physician and surgeon” as it is used in paragraph F of the ruling.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write to us again.
Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel

By ____
Philip R. Dougherty

PRD:mm
cc:

--- – Subdistrict Administrator

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