Were materials and supplies for an automatic sprinkler system at a United States military base exempt government purchases?

Short answer No. California treated the sprinkler system as a real-property improvement and taxed the materials and supplies sold to the installation contractor.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 565.0620
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1951-08-20
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
United States military-base sprinkler contractor (name redacted)

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1951. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1951
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 August 20, 1951 letter applies historical Ruling 12 and section 6384 to an automatic sprinkler system installed at a redacted United States military base. It leaves open the possibility that separately furnished personal property or some qualifying machinery and equipment could receive different treatment, while doubting that the sprinkler system itself contained such property. CDTFA says statutory law controls if it conflicts with an annotation. System components, attachment, removability, contract scope, resale-certificate use, and current Regulation 1521 can change the result.
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 contractor installing an automatic sprinkler-protection system at a United States military base believed its material purchases were exempt from California sales tax.

The letter disagreed. Because the sprinkler system or portions of it became part of the real property, section 6384 taxed the materials and supplies sold to the contractor for the work.

The letter acknowledged that separately furnished tangible personal property or qualifying machinery and equipment could potentially be bought for resale. But it doubted that any part of the sprinkler system proper would qualify, describing the system as almost entirely fixtures or construction materials.

Common questions

Was the installed sprinkler system a real-property improvement?

Yes.

Were the contractor's materials and supplies taxable?

Yes.

Could any project property be bought with a resale certificate?

Possibly, if it was separately furnished property or machinery and equipment under historical Ruling 12. The letter doubted that the sprinkler system itself qualified.

Citations and references

  • Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code section 6384 — taxable material and supply sales for federal real-property construction
  • Historical Sales and Use Tax Ruling 12 — government-contractor and machinery-and-equipment treatment discussed

Source

Original ruling text

565.0620

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
August 20, 1951

Attention: REDACTED TEXT

Gentlemen:
We acknowledge your letter of July 25 informing us that you have been awarded a contract by the [U.S.] for the installation of an automatic sprinkler protection system at the [United States Military base]. Your understanding that State sales tax does not apply with respect to the sale to you of materials purchased for use on this contract is incorrect. As this sprinkler protection system or portions thereof undoubtedly becomes a part of real property, the sale to you of the materials and supplies which you use in the performance of this contract is subject to sales tax under the express provisions of Section 6384 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Sales and Use Tax Ruling 12, copy enclosed, explains the application of the tax with respect to sales to Government contractors. It is possible that you may furnish some tangible personal property to the Government or that portions of the installation may fall within the category of “machinery and equipment” as defined in Ruling 12. Should this be so, you could properly issue a resale certificate to vendors for property becoming a part of “machinery and equipment” as defined. We doubt, however, that any portion of the automatic sprinkler protection system proper would be thus classified. We believe it would consist almost entirely of “fixtures” as defined in the ruling or of construction materials. We are forwarding to you herewith a duplicate Seller’s Permit replacing the permit which you have lost. Very truly yours, E. H. Stetson Tax Counsel

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1951. 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