Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Was a vacuum erection device an exempt prosthetic medicine when only its constriction seal remained on the body?

Short answer No. The vacuum pump was not worn on the body, so the complete device failed the then-applied fully-worn test and was a taxable appliance.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 425.0907.500
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1997-05-29
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Internal Board audit request concerning a vacuum-erection-device seller
Topics
prosthetic devices fully worn
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1997. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1997
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 May 29, 1997 internal memorandum applied a then-current requirement that the full prosthetic device be worn on the body. The device combined a worn constriction seal with an external vacuum pump. CDTFA says statutory law controls if it conflicts with an annotation. Component design, which components are worn, regulatory text, furnishing conditions, and current law can change the result.
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

A vacuum erection device combined a constriction seal worn on the body for up to thirty minutes with an external vacuum pump.

California held that the complete device was not fully worn on the body. It was therefore a taxable appliance rather than an exempt prosthetic medicine.

Common questions

Was the worn seal enough to exempt the whole device?

No.

Citations and references

  • 18 Cal. Code Regs. § 1591(b)(5), (c)(2) — prosthetic devices and excluded appliances

Source

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

Mr. Robert Roos
X------------------ District Auditing

From:

John L. Waid
Senior Tax Counsel

Subject:

X------------------------------------

425.0907.500

Date:

May 29, 1997

I am responding to your memorandum dated April 16, 1997 to the Legal Division regarding the tax status of sales of a Vacuum Erection Device (VED) by X----------------Company. You attached to your memorandum several flyers describing the device and how it works. Used to treat impotence, the VED, according to one of the flyers, consists of a Softouch™ Constriction Seal and a vacuum pump. The user places the Softouch™ on his penis, puts the pump sleeve over his penis, and operates the vacuum pump to create an erection. The Softouch™ remains on the body to maintain the erection and may be left there for up to thirty minutes. Under Regulation 1591(b) (5), a device must be fully worn on the body to qualify as a prosthetic device. (Annot. 425.0168.300 10/4/84; 7/10/96.) The only part of the VED that is worn on the body is the Softouch™. We thus conclude that the VED is an appliance excluded from the definition of "medicine" under Regulation 1591(c) (2). Its sales are subject to tax JLW:sr

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1997. 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