Could a dealer furnishing factory-warranty parts for a car sold by another dealer treat the replacement as a resale transaction?

Short answer Yes. The servicing dealer could act as the selling dealer's agent, allowing the part transfer to be treated as for resale if records showed that agency transaction.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 490.0420
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1952-10-22
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Redacted party asking about Ford factory-warranty replacement parts

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1952. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1952
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 October 22, 1952 letter addressed a Ford policy change under which one dealer might furnish a manufacturer-guaranty replacement part for a car sold by another dealer. It proposed treating the servicing dealer as agent for the original selling dealer and assumed accounting procedures could document that role. The source uses historical Ruling 67 terminology. CDTFA says statutory law controls if it conflicts with an annotation. Manufacturer policy, agency agreement, original sale warranty, reimbursement, recordkeeping, and current warranty rules 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

An automobile manufacturer allowed a dealer to furnish a factory-warranty replacement part even when another dealer had sold the car.

California said the servicing dealer could be treated as the original selling dealer's agent. On that structure, the transfer of the replacement part to the agent could be treated as a sale for resale under the warranty rule.

The letter emphasized appropriate accounting procedures so the servicing dealer's records showed that it furnished the part as agent for the dealer that made the original sale.

Common questions

Did the customer have to return to the dealer that sold the car?

No, under the proposed agency treatment.

How was the servicing dealer characterized?

As agent for the original selling dealer.

What operational step did California expect?

Accounting records showing the agency-based warranty transaction.

Citations and references

  • Historical California Ruling 67 — factory-warranty replacement-parts rule applied through dealer agency

Source

Original ruling text

490.0420

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

October 22, 1952

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

Gentlemen:
I have discussed with Mr. X-----------------, Sales Tax Administrator, your letter of October 13 addressed to him regarding the change in poly of the Ford Motor Company respecting parts furnished as replacements in satisfaction of the Manufacturer’s Guaranty and Warranty. In our opinion Sales and Use Tax Ruling 67 may be considered applicable, regardless of the fact that the retailer furnishing the replacement part pursuant to the warranty may furnish it for a car which was sold by some other dealer. This can perhaps be best accomplished by regarding the dealer actually furnishing the replacement part as the agent of the dealer who sold the car and who would have furnished the replacement part pursuant to the same warranty, had the owner gone to that dealer to secure the replacement. Presumably appropriate accounting procedures can be established so that the dealer furnishing the replacement part can show the transaction in his records for sales tax purposes as one in which he furnished a replacement part as agent for the dealer who sold the car. Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel
EHS:ph
cc:

San Francisco – Tax Administrator

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1952. 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