Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Were protective covers, including searchlight covers, exempt component parts of commercial deep-sea fishing vessels?

Short answer No, on the described use. California treated the covers as consumable protective items rather than integral vessel parts substantially attached while in use. A searchlight cover had to be removed before the searchlight operated.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 600.0360
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1951-09-25
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
A seller asking whether protective vessel covers were exempt
Topics
consumable supplies component parts commercial fishing vessels
Source
View Original PDF

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 is a September 25, 1951 California State Board of Equalization tax-counsel letter published by CDTFA as support for a sales and use tax annotation. It assumes the listed covers protected equipment only while that equipment was not in use and invited correction if their actual use differed. The conclusion applies that stated assumption and then-current Ruling 51.5. 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

A seller asked whether several types of protective covers qualified as component parts of watercraft used in commercial deep-sea fishing outside California territorial waters.

Ruling 51.5 required an integral vessel part substantially affixed or attached while in use. California viewed the covers as consumable protective items used only when the underlying equipment was idle.

A searchlight cover illustrated the problem: it had to be removed before the searchlight could operate. The letter therefore denied exemption on its understanding of the facts but invited the seller to explain if the covers were actually used differently.

What this means for you

Marine-equipment suppliers, fishers, and tax advisers

Document whether a cover remains installed during the equipment's operation or merely protects it while idle. The Board expressly left room for a different result if its factual assumption was wrong.

Common questions

Q: Were searchlight covers exempt?

A: No, on the described facts.

Q: Why not?

A: They were removed during use and were not substantially attached operational components.

Q: Was the conclusion fact-dependent?

A: Yes. The letter invited further explanation if actual use differed.

Citations and references

  • California Sales and Use Tax Ruling 51.5, as cited in the source

Source

Original ruling text

600.0360

I.,.

September 25, 1951

I
I
Attent10T1;

[

Account No.!

Gentlemen:
This is in answer to your letter of September 5 requesting information as to whether certain listed items fall within the exemption from sales tax explained in Ruling 51.5 . As indicated in that ruling, the tax does not apply with respect to property becoming a component part of watercraft for use in commercial deep sea fishing operations outside the territorial waters of this State. You will note that property is regarded as becoming a component part of watercraft only if it is an integral part of the boat, affixed or attached in a substantial manner when in use. It does not appear to us that the various types of covers listed in your letter fall within this category. Rather, we believe these are items of consumable nature, not becoming a component part of the vessels. For example, it would appear that a searchlight cover must be removed from the searchlight before the searchlight is in use. Apparently these covers are for the purpose of protection of the Yarious articles when not in use. If we are in error in our assumption concerning the use of these covers, we shall ee very glad to have you explain to us the actual use made of the various articles listed. Very truly yours,

E. H. Stetson
Tax Counsel
EHS:ph
cc:

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