Did a soft drink and sandwich sold together constitute a meal after the Hart's Drive-In decision?

Plain-English summary

An older Board annotation had concluded that a soft drink and sandwich did not constitute a meal, relying on the Treasure Island case. Tax counsel reconsidered that conclusion in light of Hart's Drive-In.

The memorandum read Hart's as modifying the earlier case on this point and emphasizing that meal status is a factual question. Based on contemporary eating habits, counsel concluded that a sandwich and soft drink sold together constituted a meal.

The memorandum said the older annotation would be deleted and replaced with the new conclusion. It did not separately explain the resulting tax amount or identify the specific transaction facts beyond the combined sale.

Common questions

Was every sandwich automatically a meal?

The source addresses a sandwich sold together with a soft drink and says meal status is a factual question.

Did the memorandum retain the older contrary annotation?

No. It said that annotation would be deleted and replaced.

Citations and references

• Treasure Island case (as identified, without a full citation, in the source)
• Hart's Drive-In case (as identified, without a full citation, in the source)

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/550-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/550-0160.pdf

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization
485-6439

Memorandum

To:

Santa Rosa – District (AHT)

From:

Headquarters – Tax Counsel (GLR)
Legal

Subject:

Soft Drinks

550.0160

September 29, 1976

Mr. Robert Nunes asked that we reply direct to you concerning the question you raised in your September 3, 1976 memo. The specific question you have is whether a soft drink and a sandwich constitutes a “meal”. As you are aware, annotation 550.0160 concludes that such a combination does not constitute a meal. The authority given for the conclusion is the Treasure Island case. From my reading of that case, I would agree with the conclusion. However, it is our opinion the decision in the Treasure Island case as to what constitutes a meal has been modified by the Hart’s Drive-In case. As noted in the Hart’s case, the problem of what constitutes a meal is a question of fact. In the Hart’s case it was concluded that a soft drink and a sandwich sold together constituted a meal. In view of our eating habits, I would have to agree that such a combination does constitute a meal. Accordingly, I will delete the referenced annotation and make a CLD stating the conclusions that a soft drink and a sandwich is a meal.

GLR:lb

cc:

Mr. Robert Nunes
Mr. Donald Hennessy