Was an automobile partly exempt when an eligible veteran selected and received it but the Veterans Administration paid $1,600 directly to the dealer?

Short answer Yes, to the extent of the amount billed to and paid directly by the Veterans Administration. California recommended showing the VA as purchaser for that share; the veteran's share was not treated as a federal purchase.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 505.0760
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1951-12-05
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Board legal staff reviewing the veterans' automobile program

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1951. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1951
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 is a December 5, 1951 internal California State Board of Equalization memorandum published by CDTFA as support for a sales and use tax annotation. It addresses the historical amputee-veteran automobile program, a $1,600 Veterans Administration direct payment, and invoice treatment. Verify current veterans-benefit and tax rules before applying it. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice.
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

Under the program described, an eligible amputee veteran obtained a Veterans Administration certificate, negotiated with a chosen dealer, and took delivery of the automobile. The dealer then sent the VA the invoice and directly billed it for $1,600, which the VA paid to the dealer.

California treated the transaction as a sale to the United States only to the extent of that direct federal payment. It recommended that the invoice identify the Veterans Administration as the actual purchaser for the portion it would pay.

The conclusion was therefore a split-purchase rule, not a full exemption simply because an eligible veteran participated in a federal benefit program.

What this means for you

Auto dealers, veterans-benefit administrators, buyers, and tax advisers

Document each payer's legal obligation and direct payment. Show the federal agency as purchaser for its share when the program and transaction support that treatment.

Common questions

Q: Did the veteran select and receive the car?

A: Yes.

Q: What portion was treated as a federal purchase?

A: The amount billed to and paid directly by the Veterans Administration.

Q: What invoice treatment did California recommend?

A: Showing the VA as the actual purchaser for its payment share.

Citations and references

  • Public Law 187, 82nd Congress, chapter 532, First Session

Source

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

505.0760

Sacramento, California
December 5, 1951

E. H. Stetson
Sales of special automobiles to amputee veterans under Public Law 187, 82nd Congress, Chapter 532, First Session, Senate Bill 1864. As I understand the factual situation, pursuant to this statute, the veteran first applies to the Veterans' Administration for an eligibility certificate to make the purchase, negotiates a sale with the dealer of his choice and takes delivery of the car. However, a copy of the sales invoice is sent to the Veterans' Administration, and the dealer sends a bill for
$1,600.00 to the Veterans' Administration, and the Veterans' Administration pays the
$1,600.00 directly to the dealer.
You are advised that we regard such a transaction as a sale to the United States to the extent of the amount paid by the United States where that amount is billed directly to the United States by the dealer and where the United States makes payment directly to the dealer. We would also suggest that as further support of the contention that the sale is partially a sale to the Veterans' Administration that the invoice should show the Veterans' Administration as the actual purchaser to the extent that payment is to be made by the Veterans' Administration.

WWM:ja

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1951. 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