Was a fireworks display a nontaxable service when the contractor kept title and possession of the fireworks and its own employees fired them?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1981. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A fireworks contractor proposed a contract under which it supplied the fireworks, mortars, frames, lumber, equipment, tools, and trained personnel needed to present a sponsored display.
California treated the arrangement as a nontaxable service if the contractor retained both title and possession of the fireworks and its own employees actually exploded them. Under those facts, the contractor was the consumer rather than the retailer of the fireworks.
The legal staff recommended that the contract explicitly say the contractor retained title and possession and fired the fireworks as a service.
If the contractor instead transferred title or possession of fireworks to the sponsor in California, the contractor would be their retailer.
What this means for you
Display companies and event sponsors
Contract wording must match actual control of the fireworks. Retained title, retained possession, and contractor-operated firing supported service treatment.
Accountants and tax professionals
Verify title, custody, employee control, sponsor instructions, equipment ownership, unused materials, and any separate property transfer.
Common questions
Q: Was the display charge taxable?
A: No, if the stated conditions were met.
Q: Who was the consumer of the fireworks?
A: The display contractor.
Q: What if the sponsor received title or possession?
A: The contractor would be treated as the retailer.
Source
- Annotated Legal Opinions collection: CDTFA Annotated Legal Opinions
- Annotation page: Annotation 515.0990
- Original supporting opinion: 515.0990 PDF
Original ruling text
515.0990
(916) 445-6450
October 7, 1981
REDACTED TEXT
Dear Mr. REDACTED TEXT,
This is in reply to your August 13, 1981 letter regarding the format for the new contract for REDACTED TEXT. Specifically, you wish to know whether the California Board of Equalization would view the new contract as REDACTED TEXT providing a service for a customer by displaying fireworks rather than REDACTED TEXT selling fireworks to the customer. The relevant contract provisions are: “1. The Contractor does hereby agree to furnish to the Sponsor a fireworks display as follows: “2. In the furnishing of the fireworks display, the Contractor agrees to provide one or more trained personnel to present the said display, such personnel to be the agents and employees of the Contractor, but to act generally under general instructions and directions of the Sponsor provided such instructions and directions do not create any safety hazard for the agent or employee or other persons or property. Except as otherwise provided herein, Contractor shall also provide all fireworks, mortars, frames, sets, lumber, and other equipment and tools necessary for the fireworks display.” As we understand the terms of the contract, REDACTED TEXT employees will retain possession of the fireworks and explode the fireworks for the Sponsor. If such is the intent of REDACTED TEXT, we believe a statement to that effect should be included in the contract. In such case, we suggest the following opening sentence to the second provision in the contract. “2. The Contractor and the Sponsor agree that the Contractor will retain title and possession of the fireworks and will explode the fireworks as a service to the Sponsor. In the furnishing…” In such case, if REDACTED TEXT employees do actually retain possession of the fireworks and explode the fireworks, we believe REDACTED TEXT is providing a service for the Sponsor, and REDACTED TEXT is the consumer rather than the retailer of the fireworks so furnished. Of course, if REDACTED TEXT gives title to, or possession of, fireworks to the Sponsor in California, we will consider REDACTED TEXT as the retailer of such fireworks.
515.0990
again.
2
October 7, 1981
We trust this answers your questions. If you need further information, feel free to write Very truly yours, R. L. Dick Tax Counsel
RLD:jw
bc:
Out-of-State – District Administrator
Mr. John Murray (CLD)
What does the law say today, for your facts?
This ruling is from 1981. 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