Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Was use tax due on self-grown Michigan lumber brought to California for a cabin, or on the trailer used to haul it?

Short answer No on the lumber because it was not purchased. The trailer depended on whether it had been bought for California use under the historical rule.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 570.0780
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1953-11-12
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Michigan timber-farm owner
Topics
california intent use tax
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1953. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1953
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 November 12, 1953 opinion applies a historical three-month vehicle rule and assumes the owner bought the trailer before intending to bring it to California. It separately refers agriculture and vehicle-registration questions to other departments. Current trailer, vehicle, self-produced-property, and use-tax rules control.
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 Michigan timber-farm owner planned to bring lumber he had grown himself to California and use it to build a cabin. California found no use tax on the lumber because use tax applied only to property purchased outside the state for California use, and he had not purchased it.

The owner also planned to haul the lumber with a four-wheel trailer. The letter assumed he bought the trailer before forming a California-use intent and said tax would apply only if it had been purchased for California use and brought here within the historical three-month period.

Common questions

Why was the lumber not taxable?

It was grown by the owner rather than purchased.

Did the opinion resolve agriculture or vehicle-registration requirements?

No. Those questions were referred to the Department of Agriculture and Department of Motor Vehicles.

Source

Original ruling text

570.0780

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

November 12, 1953

V. A. C--R.F.D. No. X
---, Muskegon County
Michigan
Dear Dr. C---:
Your letter of October 26 addressed to the Secretary of State has been referred to this office for reply concerning the use tax. As we understand it, you propose to bring into this State certain lumber which was grown by you on your timber farm to be used in the erection of a cabin in this State. The use tax applies only with respect to property which has been purchased outside this State for use in this State. As you did not purchase the lumber in question you will owe no use tax with respect thereto. Likewise, we assume that the four-wheel trailer with which you propose to bring the lumber into this State was purchased by you prior to the time you intended to bring it to California. The use tax would apply with respect to the trailer only if it was purchased by you for use in this State and brought into this State within three months from the date of purchase. We are referring your letter to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Motor Vehicles for further reply. Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel

EHS:ph
cc:

Chicago (FAL)

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1953. 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