Did mobility equipment remain exempt when a hospital ordered it for a specific patient and the hospital or Medicare paid?

Short answer Yes. California treated the equipment as purchased by the patient for personal physician-directed use, and third-party payment did not defeat the exemption.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 425.0130
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1979-11-26
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A hospital or hospital plan ordering mobility equipment for identified patients

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1979. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1979
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: The operative letter is dated November 26, 1979. The source also contains a March 15, 2002 note referencing Regulation 1591.2(c) and an August 12, 2003 retyping note; those maintenance dates do not replace the letter's issue date. Current law and ordering facts control.
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

California treated wheelchairs, crutches, canes, quad canes, and walkers ordered by a hospital for a specifically identified patient as purchased by that individual for personal use at a physician's direction. A physician wrote the order, a duty nurse placed it with the vendor, and the vendor billed the hospital plan.

The exemption was not lost merely because the hospital plan or Medicare paid for the equipment instead of the patient paying directly.

Common questions

Did the hospital's role as purchaser automatically make the equipment taxable?

No, because the equipment was ordered for a specific patient's personal physician-directed use.

Did Medicare or hospital-plan payment defeat the exemption?

No.

Which items did the opinion cover?

Wheelchairs, crutches, canes, quad canes, and walkers.

Citations and references

  • California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6369.2 — personal-use mobility-device exemption applied in the letter
  • California Sales and Use Tax Regulation 1591.2(c) — provision identified in the source's 2002 note

Source

Original ruling text

425.0130

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
November 26, 1979
Dear REDACTED TEXT:
This is in response to your telephone inquiry of November 20, 1979. Your inquiry was in response to our letter of October 16, 1979 concerning the correct application of tax to REDACTED TEXT’s purchase of certain medical devices, specifically items which are exempt from tax pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 6369.2. Section 6369.2 provides that wheelchairs, crutches, canes, quad canes and walkers are exempt from tax when they are sold to an individual for the personal use of that individual as directed by a physician. At REDACTED TEXT when a physician determines that a patient needs one of the above listed devices, he will write an order for the equipment. A duty nurse will then order the equipment from a vendor. The vendor bills you for the property and payment is made either by REDACTED TEXT or by Medicare. You wish to know if your purchases in this manner entitle REDACTED TEXT to the exemption provided for in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 6369.2. We are of the opinion that wheelchairs, crutches, canes, quad canes and walkers ordered in the manner you describe can be considered to be purchased by an individual for his own use at the direction of a physician, and therefore exempt from tax under Section 6369.2.* The fact that payment for the equipment is made by either REDACTED TEXT or Medicare does not cause the exemption to be lost. office.

If you have further questions concerning this matter, please write or call this Very truly yours, Mary C. Armstrong Staff Counsel

*"See now also Regulation 1591.2(c)" Note added by SPJ 3/15/02 Retyped 8/12/03 by Debbie Self

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1979. 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