Could section 6009.1 apply when property bought outside California may initially have been intended for functional use here?

Plain-English summary

California extended the section 6009.1 exclusion to property bought outside the state, brought into California, and later transported for sole use outside California when nothing occurred here except storage or another right or power described by the statute.

The memorandum said the exclusion applied even if the property may have been intended for functional use in California when purchased. The actual limited activity while the property was here and its later sole out-of-state use controlled the stated result.

Based on that conclusion, the memorandum directed that one taxpayer's refund claim be allowed and said a separate recommendation for refund would follow in another matter.

Common questions

Did possible California-use intent at purchase automatically defeat the exclusion?

No. The memorandum applied section 6009.1 despite that possible intent on the stated storage-only facts.

Could the property be functionally used in California before removal?

No such use was approved. The memorandum required that nothing occur here except storage or another right or power described in section 6009.1.

Citations and references

• Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 6009.1 — storage and later sole out-of-state use exclusion applied

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/570-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/570-1165.pdf

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

Mr. E. V. Anderson

From:

T. P. Putnam

570.1165

Date:

August 24, 1970

This is in regard to your memo of August 11, 1970.
After discussing the matter with Mr. McManigal and other members of our legal staff, I have concluded that based on our past practice we should extend the 6009.1 exemption to those situations in which property purchased outside the state is brought here and later transported for use solely outside the state if nothing is done with the property while it is here except to store it or to exercise any of the other rights or powers over it that are described in Section 6009.1. The exemption should be applied under those circumstances even if it may appear that the property was intended for functional use in California at the time it was purchased. Accordingly, the claim for refund by “A” should be allowed. Mr. McManigal will send another letter with respect to “U” making a recommendation for refund in that case.

TPP:kc

[1b]