Were hypodermic needles and syringes exempt medicines after California's 1983 law change?

Short answer Generally no, but insulin syringes were exempt when a registered pharmacist furnished them for a person's diabetes treatment as directed by a physician.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 425.0420
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1984-04-10
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Board legal staff updating Annotation 425.0420

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1984
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 source is an April 10, 1984 internal memorandum proposing an update to an older annotation after a statutory amendment effective January 1, 1983. It does not reproduce the attached draft or the underlying November 13, 1962 opinion. Current law controls.
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 legal staff said intravenous sets, syringes, and needles generally did not qualify as exempt medicines under the cited rule. A statutory amendment effective January 1, 1983 created a narrower result for insulin syringes.

Under the memorandum, an insulin syringe qualified when a registered pharmacist furnished it to a person for diabetes treatment as directed by a physician. The document proposed amending the existing annotation to reflect that change in law.

Common questions

Were intravenous sets, syringes, and needles generally exempt?

No.

Which syringes did the memorandum identify as exempt?

Insulin syringes furnished by a registered pharmacist to a person for diabetes treatment as directed by a physician.

Did the 1984 memorandum create the rule itself?

No. It described a 1982 enactment effective January 1, 1983 and proposed updating the older annotation.

Citations and references

  • California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6365 — general rule cited for nonexempt intravenous sets, syringes, and needles
  • California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6369(e) — insulin-syringe amendment described in the memorandum
  • AB 3195 (1982), Chapter 1589 — legislation identified as making the amendment

Source

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

Mr. D. J. Hennessy

From:

Charles J. Graziano

Subject:

Annotation 425.0420

425.0420

Date:

April 10, 1984

Pursuant to your request, I have prepared the attached draft of DTLG Annotation 425.0420 for your approval. Generally, intravenous sets, syringes, and needles do not qualify as exempt medicines under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 6365. Effective January 1, 1983, however, Section 6369(e) was amended [AB 3195, Ch. 1589, Stats. 1982] to provide that insulin syringes qualify as exempt prescription medicines when furnished by a registered pharmacist to a person for the treatment of diabetes as directed by a physician. Therefore, Annotation 425.0420 should be amended to reflect this change in law.

CJG:ba

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1984. 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