Was a washing-machine manufacturer's mandatory warranty charge taxable when the retailer passed it to the customer?

Short answer Yes. The required manufacturer warranty was an integral part of the washing-machine sale, so the retailer's passed-through charge joined the taxable measure.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 490.0600
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1953-09-11
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Board staff reviewing a washing-machine manufacturer's warranty charge

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1953. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1953
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 supporting official memorandum is dated September 11, 1953, which this page uses; the current annotation instead ends with December 19, 1952, an unresolved date conflict preserved here. The memorandum assumed a factory charged the retailer for a washing-machine warranty, the retailer passed that charge to the customer, the manufacturer supplied defect parts and reimbursed dealer labor, and the coverage was mandatory. CDTFA says statutory law controls if it conflicts with an annotation. True optionality, who is warrantor, charge flow, parts and labor obligations, and current warranty 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 washing-machine manufacturer charged the retailer for a warranty, and the retailer passed that amount on to the customer. If a defect arose, the manufacturer supplied the parts and reimbursed the retailer for labor.

California treated the warranty as mandatory and integral to the appliance sale. The amount charged to the customer therefore was included in the taxable measure.

The memorandum distinguished an optional television warranty, which could be treated as a separate transaction because the customer was free not to buy it.

Common questions

Was the manufacturer warranty charge taxable?

Yes, on the mandatory facts described.

Why did passing the factory charge through matter?

It became part of the amount the customer had to pay for the washing machine and its required coverage.

Would a genuinely optional warranty have the same treatment?

No.

Citations and references

  • California mandatory-warranty rule — a required manufacturer warranty charge was an integral part of the appliance sale

Source

Original ruling text

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

490.0600

Date:
To:


From:

Bill Holden

Re:


Sacramento, California
September 11, 1953

Account No. -- -- XX-XXXXXX

The question presented in your memorandum of October 17 is whether a particular sum billed by a retailer to his customer as a warranty is included in the measure of the sales tax imposed upon the sale of a washing machine. The factory charges the retailer for the warranty and the retailer passes the charge along to his customers. The manufacturer is the warrantor and in case of defect the manufacturer supplies the parts and reimburses the retailer for the labor. It is our opinion that the warranty is included in the measure of the sales tax. the only basis for regarding certain television warranties as not subject to the tax is that the customer has complete freedom not to buy the warranty. On that basis, we can regard the sale of such an optional warranty as a completely separate transaction. In this case, however, if our understanding of the facts is correct that this is a mandatory warranty, the warranty is obviously an integral part of the sale and the amount charged is therefore subject to the tax.

Bill Holden
BH:ja

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1953. 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