Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Could a tanker count as a water common carrier under the 1963 version of section 6385?

Short answer Yes. A tanker transporting persons or property for compensation in interstate or foreign commerce fell within the term 'any vessel.'
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 500.0160
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1963-09-19
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A redacted correspondent through Board Member George R. Reilly
Topics
common carrier interstate commerce foreign commerce compensation
Source
View Original PDF

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 September 19, 1963 staff letter interpreted that year's amendment to section 6385 and a proposed Ruling 55 revision. It addressed only tanker status and said exemption remained subject to the statute's other conditions. It is not current guidance or a ruling issued to another taxpayer; present vessel activity, compensation, commerce, transactions, and law control.
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 tanker qualified within the historical section 6385 term “any vessel” when it transported persons or property for compensation in interstate or foreign commerce by water.

That classification made the tanker a common carrier for the statute's purposes, but the letter did not create an automatic exemption for every tanker transaction. It expressly made entitlement subject to the other conditions provided in the law.

Common questions

Did the regulation need to list tankers by name?

No. Tax counsel said tankers were unquestionably within “any vessel.”

Was compensation required?

Yes. The described status depended on compensated transportation.

Did tanker status alone exempt every purchase?

No. The remaining statutory exemption conditions still applied.

Citations and references

  • California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6385 — historical water common-carrier definition interpreted
  • Sales and Use Tax Ruling 55 — proposed conforming amendment referenced in the letter

Source

Original ruling text

500.0160

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
0903 Tankers transporting persons or property in
interstate commerce under section – 6385.
September 19, 1963

Gentlemen:
Honorable George R. Reilly has requested me to reply to your telegram received yesterday suggesting the inclusion of the word “tankers” in the amendment to ruling 55 incorporating the provisions of the 1963 amendment to section 6385 of the Sales and Use Tax Law. It is our opinion that tankers are unquestionably within the term “any vessel” and this will be our interpretation of the law. Thus, any tanker engaged for compensation in transporting persons or property in interstate or foreign commerce by water will be regarded as a common carrier within the meaning of section 6385, and entitled to the exemption under the conditions provided for therein. Enclosed is a copy of the revised regulation. Very truly yours, E. H. Stetson Tax Counsel

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