Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Were retailer charges for sending and receiving a fax by telephone modem subject to California sales tax?

Short answer No. Neither the sending retailer's transmission charge nor the receiving retailer's pickup charge was subject to sales tax.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 515.0064
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1994-12-08
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A California Board of Equalization district tax technician
Topics
facsimile services
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1994
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 California State Board of Equalization Assistant Chief Counsel memorandum dated December 8, 1994, published by CDTFA as support for a sales and use tax annotation. It addresses two $3 charges for a fax sent and received through retailers when neither customer owned a fax machine. It does not analyze separately sold paper copies, equipment, telecommunications taxes, modern electronic-document services, or bundled charges. Another provider should check current rules for its exact service and deliverables. 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

A customer without a fax machine paid a local retailer $3 to transmit a fax by telephone modem to another retailer in the recipient's town. California said the sending retailer's charge was not subject to sales tax.

The recipient then paid the receiving retailer $3 to pick up the fax. California also said that receiving charge was not subject to sales tax.

What this means for you

Document-transmission businesses

The opinion treated both ends of the fax-transmission service as nontaxable.

Customers

The source separately confirmed the sender's transmission fee and the recipient's pickup fee.

Accountants and tax professionals

Keep the narrow 1994 facts in view and separately analyze charges for copies, paper, equipment, or modern electronic-delivery products.

Common questions

Q: Was the $3 sending charge taxable?

A: No.

Q: Was the $3 receiving and pickup charge taxable?

A: No.

Q: Did the memorandum cite a specific statute or regulation?

A: No. It stated the conclusions without a numbered citation.

Citations and references

  • No specific statute or regulation was cited in the memorandum.

Source

Original ruling text

State of California

515.0064

Board of Equalization
Legal Division

Memorandum
To:

Ms. E. N. “Betsy” Teesdale
Tax Technician II
Marysville District Office - KHD

From:

Gary J. Jugum
Assistant Chief Counsel

Subject:

Sales Tax Liability of Faxes
(Facsimile Transmission Via Phone Modem)

Cooke.

Date:

December 8, 1994

This is in response to your memorandum of November 7, 1994 addressed to Thomas

You have sought our opinion on the taxability of fax transmissions. You describe the problem as follows. Taxpayer A wants to send a fax to Taxpayer B. Neither party has a fax machine. Taxpayer A goes to a local retailer who offers this service. This retailer sends the fax to a designated retailer in the town where Taxpayer B is located. The sending retailer charges Taxpayer A $3.00 for the transmission. This charge is not subject to sales tax. Taxpayer B goes to the receiving retailer’s place of business to pick up the fax and is charged $3.00 for the transmission. This charge is not subject to sales tax. GJJ:sr cc:

Mr. Glenn A. Bystrom – MIC: 43
Mr. James Speed – MIC: 47
Ms. Sue Coty – MIC: 46
Mr. William D. Dunn – MIC: 49
Mr. Dennis Fox – MIC: 40
Ms. Joan Armenta-Roberts – MIC: 40
Sales and Use Tax Attorneys

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1994. 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