Did bar merchandise lost through breakage, spillage, theft, fire, or unexplained disappearance create tax on self-consumed resale inventory?

Short answer No if the loss was bona fide, adequately documented, and occurred without intervening taxable use.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 570.1340
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1952-12-15
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Redacted certified public accountants for a bar operator

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1952. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1952
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 December 15, 1952 opinion concerns merchandise acquired under resale certificates and lost in a bar operation without intervening taxable use. It requires adequate records and bona fide involuntary loss. Current inventory-loss, recordkeeping, resale-certificate, sales-tax, 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 bar operator asked about merchandise lost through breakage, spillage, fire, theft, or mysterious disappearance.

California said section 6094's tax on nonresale use did not apply when property was involuntarily lost and there had been no intervening taxable use. The retailer still had to maintain adequate records and establish that the claimed loss was genuine.

Common questions

Did every unexplained shortage qualify?

No. The asserted involuntary loss had to be bona fide and supported by adequate records.

What would change the result?

An intervening taxable use before the loss would take the property outside the stated no-tax rule.

Citations and references

  • Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 6094 — resale-certificate property used before resale and cost-based tax measure discussed by the source

Source

Original ruling text

570.1340

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

December 15, 1952

C--- & G--Certified Public Accountants
XXX South --- Street
--- --- XX, California
Attention:

Mr. S. G---

Gentlemen:
You inquire as to your client’s possible sales tax liability on merchandise which is lost due to either breakage, spillage, or mysterious disappearance in the operation of a bar. Section 6094 of the California Sales and Use Tax Law provides, in substance, that if a purchaser gives a resale certificate and makes any use of the property other than retention, demonstration, or display while holding it for sale in the regular course of business, the use constitutes a retail sale by him as of the time the property is first used, and the cost of the property to him shall be deemed the gross receipts from such retail sale. Where property is lost due to fire, theft, breakage, spillage, or is otherwise not resold but there has not been any intervening taxable use, the tax liability provided for in Section 6094 is not applicable. Of course, the retailer is expected to maintain adequate records and the asserted involuntary loss must be bona fide. Very truly yours,

W. W. Mangels
Assistant Counsel

WWM:ja
cc:
Los Angeles – Tax Administrator

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1952. 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