Were medicines exempt when an employer bought them for its employed physician to treat employees?

Plain-English summary

California exempted sales of medicines to an industry that employed a full- or part-time physician to treat employees. When all purchased medicines would be administered by the doctor or under the doctor's direction, the employer's purchase could be regarded as made on the physician's behalf.

Common questions

Did the employer itself have to be a physician?

No.

What condition did the letter emphasize?

All purchased medicines had to be administered by the employed doctor or under that doctor's direction.

Citations and references

• Historical California Board of Equalization Ruling 22(a)(4) — sale-to-physician or hospital treatment provision interpreted in the letter

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/425-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/425-0140.pdf

Original ruling text

425.0140

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
November 20, 1964
REDACTED TEXT
Attention: REDACTED TEXT
Gentlemen:
This is in reply to your letter of November 12 in which you ask whether (a)(4) of ruling 22, which exempts medicines “sold to a licensed physician and surgeon, podiatrist or hospital for the treatment of a human being,” can be interpreted to include sales of medicines to industries who employ full or part time physicians who use the medicines in the medical treatment of other employees. In our opinion, this kind of sale can be interpreted as an exempt sale under (a)(4) of ruling 22. If all the medicines purchased will be administered by a doctor, or under his direction, they can be regarded as purchased in his behalf. Very truly yours, E. H. Stetson Tax Counsel By_______ Philip R. Dougherty PRD:mm cc: Hollywood – Subdistrict Administrator