Could a druggist presume insulin was sold under physician direction for the diabetes-treatment exemption?

Plain-English summary

California said that, for practical purposes, insulin sold by a druggist would be presumed to be used under a physician's direction for diabetes treatment. That presumption brought the sale within the liberalized exemption described in the memorandum unless evidence showed otherwise.

Common questions

Was the presumption absolute?

No. Contrary evidence could defeat it.

What treatment did the memorandum concern?

Diabetes treatment with insulin.

Citations and references

• California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6369 — medicine exemption applied in the memorandum
• 1963 amendment to section 6369 — statutory change identified as liberalizing the exemption

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/425-0460.pdf

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

Santa Barbara – Auditing (LCF)

From:

Tax Counsel (EHS) – Headquarters

Subject:

Ruling 22, Sales of Insulin

425.0460

Date:

October 28, 1964

In answer to your memo of October 20, 1964, we believe that for practical purposes we should presume that when insulin is sold by a druggist it is sold for use under the direction or as directed by a physician, thus meeting the liberalized exemption made by the 1963 amendment to section 6369.

EHS:fb