Was the value of access to a specific mobilehome location included in the taxable price of the home?

Short answer No, if part of the price truly bought location-access rights. The contract should state that value separately, or the taxpayer had to prove an allocation.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 580.0275
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1976-07-06
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Board staff discussing how to exclude mobilehome location-access value from the tax measure

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1976. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1976
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 is a July 6, 1976 California State Board of Equalization internal memorandum about separating a mobilehome's vehicle price from the value of access to a specific location. It reflects then-current valuation practice and placed the proof burden on the taxpayer when the contract did not separately state location value. Current mobilehome, park-tenancy, lease, valuation, sales-tax, and use-tax rules may differ. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice.
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

Tax applied to the selling price of the mobilehome vehicle, not to a genuine separately purchased right of access to a specific location. The sales contract therefore should separately state the amount paid for those access rights.

If the contract did not state an amount, an allocation could still be allowed, but the taxpayer had to establish it. The memorandum said guide values could help but were subjective, and comparable sales of similar mobilehomes without location access could be used when stronger evidence was unavailable.

Citations and references

  • California Sales and Use Tax Law's vehicle tax measure (described without a section number in the source)
  • Kelley Blue Book location-value guidance (described in the source)

Source

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

580.0275

To:

______

From:

Glenn L. Rigby

Subject:

Location Value on Mobile Homes

Date:

July 6, 1976

This is a follow-up on our conversation concerning the exclusion of location value from the measure of sales or use tax on the sale of mobile homes. Under the Sales and Use Tax Law, the measure of tax on the sale of the mobile home is limited to the selling price of the "vehicle". If the purchaser is buying not only the mobile home but access to a specific location, any portion of the selling price attributable to the right of access to the location should be excluded from the measure of tax. We have informed taxpayers that, if in fact, part of the price paid represents access rights, the price for such rights should be separately stated. If the vendor and the purchaser fail to separately state the location value, we will allow a portion of the price to be allocated to such value provided that the retailer can establish the appropriate amount. While the Kelly Blue Book does provide some guidelines for this amount, we understand that these guidelines are largely subjective and at times might not be truly indicative of the true value. In the absence of convincing evidence as to the value of the access rights, we often look to the prices on which similar mobile homes have been sold without location access. To summarize, the sales contract should separately state the location value. If it does not, the burden of proof that the purchase price includes an amount for location value must be borne by the taxpayer.

GLR:lb

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1976. 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