Was operating a high-energy radiation facility taxable when customers brought samples for experimentation and received operators, advice, readings, and equipment use?

Short answer No. California treated the facility operation as a service because it transferred no property, report, or fabricated customer product.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 515.1060
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1966-10-17
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
An operator of a high-energy radiation testing facility (identity redacted)

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1966. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1966
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 Associate Tax Counsel opinion dated October 17, 1966, published by CDTFA as support for a sales and use tax annotation. It assumes customers brought samples for experimentation, the provider furnished operators, advice, readings, and oscilloscopes, and no product, report, possession transfer, fabrication, or processing resulted. Another laboratory should check current testing, irradiation, customer-property processing, report, equipment-rental, facility, operator, and sales-tax rules. 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 facility operated a machine producing high-energy radiation pulses. Customers brought samples for experimentation and received operators, technical advice, radiation-level readings, and use of oscilloscopes.

California treated the facility's charge as a nontaxable service. The provider transferred no property or report, did not transfer possession of its equipment, and did not fabricate or process customer-furnished property.

The taxable transaction was the facility's own acquisition of machine components, which the opinion assumed had already borne tax during construction.

What this means for you

Testing laboratories

Facility access with operators and technical support was a service when no customer property or report was produced or transferred.

Accountants and tax professionals

Review reports, processed samples, equipment possession, operator control, technical advice, facility charges, and component purchases.

Common questions

Q: Was the irradiation charge taxable?

A: No.

Q: Did the facility fabricate customer property?

A: No.

Q: Who owed tax on machine components?

A: The facility when acquiring them.

Source

Original ruling text

515.1060
October 17, 1966
Attention: REDACTED TEXT
Gentlemen:
Mr. E. H. Stetson, Tax Counsel, is presently on vacation. In his absence, your letter of October 3, 1966, has been referred to me for answer. Our understanding of your question is that you operate a machine used to stimulate high energy radiation pulses. Persons may bring samples to your plant for experimentation. In the process of providing this service, one or more operators are furnished by you. Technical advice as required, readings of radiation levels, use of two oscilloscopes, etc., are also furnished. As a result of the operation, there are no products or reports connected with the operation of the machine. There is no transfer of possession of any property by you. There is no fabrication or processing of customer furnished property. However, the customer does take advantage of the use of your facility to test his materials. It is our opinion that what you provide is a nontaxable service. The only taxable transaction would be in the acquisition of the components of the machine. We assume that the proper tax has been previously paid with respect to the construction of the facility. If you have further questions regarding this matter, feel free to inquire. Very truly yours,

JDP:ab
cc: Oakland – District Administrator

Jack D. Paulson
Associate Tax Counsel

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1966. 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