Were invoiced equipment transfers between wholly owned subsidiaries taxable despite their common parent?

Short answer Yes on the stated facts. The invoices indicated title transfers between separate corporations, and tax applied to the invoice prices.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 495.0760
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1963-10-25
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A corporate group transferring equipment among wholly owned subsidiaries

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1963. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1963
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 1963 staff opinion addressed equipment moved among separate wholly owned subsidiaries that issued intercompany invoices to track fixed assets. It assumed none of the transfers qualified as occasional sales under former Ruling 81. Current related-party, title, consideration, occasional-sale, invoice-price, sales-tax, and use-tax rules control today.
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 parent company had several wholly owned subsidiaries in the same area. When equipment purchased by one organization was needed by another, the group issued an invoice from one company to the other to track the fixed asset.

California concluded that related-company status did not prevent tax if the transfer was a sale. On these facts, the invoices indicated actual transfers of title between the separate corporations, so tax applied to the invoiced prices.

The opinion expressly assumed that none of the transfers qualified as occasional sales under former Ruling 81.

Common questions

Did common ownership eliminate the sale?

No. The entities were treated as separate corporations.

Why did the invoices matter?

The Board viewed them as evidence of actual title transfers.

Did the opinion rule out an occasional-sale exception?

No. It assumed the transfers did not qualify under former Ruling 81.

Citations and references

  • California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6006
  • Former California Sales and Use Tax Ruling 81

Source

Original ruling text

495.0760

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

October 25, 1963
--- --- ----- --- ----- --- --Gentlemen:
This is in reply to your letter of October 8 regarding the tax liability in connection with the transfer of assets between your related companies. We understand that [A] Company has several wholly-owned subsidiaries occupying various buildings in the Santa Monica area, where the parent company also is located. Sometimes it is found that pieces of equipment purchased by one organization are needed in one of the other operations. In order to keep track of the fixed assets, you issue an invoice from one company to another at the time such equipment is transferred. If the transfer of the equipment constitutes a sale as defined in section 6006 of the Sales and Use Tax Law, the sale is taxable even though it may occur between related corporations. The sections defines a “sale,” in part, as follows: “Any transfer of title or possession, exchange, barter, lease, or rental, conditional or otherwise, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of tangible personal property for a consideration. ‘Transfer of possession,’ ‘lease,’ or ‘rental’ includes only transactions found by the board to be in lieu of a transfer of title, exchange or barter.” The fact that an invoice is issued whenever one of the corporations in question transfers equipment to another corporation indicates that there is an actual transfer of title. Thus, on the basis of the facts presented in your letter, it is our opinion that the tax applies to the invoiced price. We assume that none of the transfers constitute “occasional sales” under ruling 81, copy enclosed. Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel
By_________
Patricia McKinney

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1963. 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