When were charges for writing, typing, correcting, and making copies of resumes taxable under California's true-object test?

Plain-English summary

California distinguished creative resume composition from mechanical copying by asking what the customer primarily wanted.

When the business interviewed a customer or otherwise used its skill to compose a resume and furnished a single copy, the transaction was a nontaxable service. The business was the consumer of the small amount of paper and other property delivered to the client.

When the business merely copied a resume, its charge was generally taxable as a transfer or fabrication of tangible personal property. Correcting spelling and punctuation did not change that result. But the letter said providing only a single copy of individually hand-typed material was not a sale.

Multiple copies were also taxable, whether the business or someone else had composed the original resume. The source viewed the copied resume as the desired article and the copying as mechanical production rather than creative composition.

What this means for you

Writers, printers, and document services

Original composition and one incidental copy were treated differently from selling reproduction work or multiple finished copies.

Accountants and tax professionals

Separate creative composition, interviews, single-copy delivery, corrections, copying, printing, and multiple-copy charges in the records.

Common questions

Q: Was original resume composition taxable?

A: No, when the charge primarily bought the composition service and one copy was incidental.

Q: Were multiple copies taxable?

A: Yes.

Q: Did spelling and punctuation corrections make copying a creative service?

A: No.

Citations and references

• California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6006(b)
• Sales Tax General Bulletin 57-18 (referenced in the source)
• Sales Tax Ruling 24 (referenced in the source)

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
• Annotation page: Annotation 515.0360
• Original supporting opinion: 515.0360 PDF

Original ruling text

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

515.0360

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

May 4, 1965

Gentlemen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 1965 requesting clarification as to the application of sales tax to your charges, which you described generally as the writing of resumes. You give specific examples of the various transactions which result in your charges. When the charge is primarily for the composition of the resume, with or without an interview with the customer, the tax does not, in our opinion, apply. Based on the breakdown of the charges as set out in your letter, we believe that if you furnish a single copy of the resume to your client, you may be regarded as the consumer of the small amount of paper and other tangible property which the client receives. This is particularly true in view of your statement that if the customer desires to have the resume printed elsewhere, your charge to him remains the same. When, however, you merely copy resumes, including making corrections in spelling and punctuation, we believe that your charges are taxable as for the transfer of title to tangible personal property, or the producing, fabricating or processing of property for consumers, specifically defined as a sale in Section 6006(b) of the Sales and Use Tax Law. If all you turn over to your customer is single copies of individually hand-typed material, we would say you have not made a sale. In this connection se Sales Tax General Bulletin 57-18, copy enclosed. See also for the application of tax to printing in general, Ruling 24, copy enclosed. The basic distinction in determining whether a particular transaction involves a “sale” or a “service” is one of true object of contract, i.e., is the real object sought by the buyer the “service” per se, or the finished article produced by the service? If the true object of the contract is the service per se, the transactions would be nontaxable even though some tangible personal property is transferred. When what your customer desires is a resume, the true object of the contract would appear to be your services and skill in composing such a resume. On the other hand, when your customer desires

Mr. ---

-2-

May 4, 1965
515.0360

multiple copies of resumes, whether composed by you or others, plus corrections in spelling and punctuation, the true object of the contract would appear to be the copied resume as an article of property into which you contribute no creative ideas, but only your mechanical ability to produce copies. The fact that you make spelling and punctuation corrections in the process does not appear to us sufficient to change the basic object of the contract. Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel

EHS:fb
Encl.
cc:

Long Beach – Subdist. Admin.