Were dog and cat grooming services exempt from Utah sales tax because pets should not be treated as tangible personal property or because they benefit disabled and elderly people?

Plain-English summary

Utah Private Letter Ruling 00-015 said dog and cat grooming services were subject to Utah sales tax.

The Commission treated dogs and cats as tangible personal property under Utah's broad statutory definition and long-standing Utah case law.

Because Utah taxed services to repair, renovate, clean, or wash tangible personal property, the Commission concluded that grooming a dog or cat was taxable.

It also rejected a requested medicine exemption and said only the Legislature could create a new exemption for pet grooming.

The request

The requester argued that pet groomers should not be taxed for cleaning animals treated as tangible personal property.

Alternatively, the requester asked for a special exemption because dogs and cats provide health and well-being benefits to disabled and elderly people.

Pets as tangible personal property

The Commission cited Utah Code Ann. § 59-12-102(29), which broadly included corporeal things capable of being possessed or exchanged and other physically existing articles or things.

It said that definition did not allow the Commission to exclude dogs and cats on its own.

The response also cited six Utah Supreme Court decisions describing dogs or other animals as personal property under Utah statutes.

Grooming as a taxable service

Utah Code Ann. § 59-12-103(1)(g) and (h) imposed sales tax on amounts charged for services to repair, renovate, clean, or wash tangible personal property.

Because grooming involved cleaning or washing dogs and cats, the Commission held the service taxable.

No medicine exemption

The requester compared the benefits of companion animals to medicine for disabled and elderly people.

The Commission acknowledged that prescription medicine was specifically exempt under Utah Code Ann. § 59-12-104(10), but said the applicable definition of medicine did not include dogs, cats, or grooming services.

The medicine exemption therefore did not apply.

Commission could not create an exemption

The Commission said it could enforce laws enacted by the Utah Legislature but could not enact new laws or amend existing ones.

Only the Legislature could create the requested pet-grooming exemption.

Holding

Under the law discussed in the ruling:

• Dogs and cats were tangible personal property.
• Cleaning or washing them was a taxable service.
• The medicine exemption did not cover pets or grooming.
• The Tax Commission could not administratively create a special exemption.

What this means for you

Pet groomers

The ruling treated grooming charges as taxable because the service cleaned or washed tangible personal property. Verify the current Utah treatment before collecting or remitting tax today.

Animal-service businesses

The tax result turned on the kind of service performed and the statutory classification of the animal, not on whether an unclaimed animal had resale value.

Accountants and tax professionals

Do not extend the ruling to every animal-related service. It specifically analyzed dog and cat grooming as cleaning or washing.

Common questions

Q: Did Utah treat dogs and cats as tangible personal property?

A: Yes. The Commission relied on the statutory definition and Utah Supreme Court cases.

Q: Why was grooming taxable?

A: The ruling said grooming involved cleaning or washing tangible personal property, a taxable service under the cited statute.

Q: Did the prescription-medicine exemption apply?

A: No. The Commission said the statutory medicine definition did not include dogs, cats, or grooming services.

Q: Could the Commission create a special exemption?

A: No. It said only the Utah Legislature could enact that exemption.

Key source language

• Taxable service: “as dog and cat grooming services involve the repair, renovation, cleaning, or washing of tangible personal property, these services are taxable.”
• Medicine exemption: “the definition of Amedicine@ for purposes of this exemption is limited and does not include dogs and cats or the services to groom them.”
• Legislative authority: “Only the Legislature can provide an exemption for dog and cat grooming services.”

Citations and references

• Utah Code Ann. §§ 59-12-102(29), 59-12-103(1)(g), (h), and 59-12-104(10)
• Jenkins v. Ballantyne, 8 Utah 245, 30 P. 760 (Utah 1892)
• State v. McKee, 17 Utah 370, 53 P. 733 (Utah 1898)
• Utah v. Bates, 25 Utah 1, 69 P. 70 (Utah 1902)
• Watkins v. Jensen, 58 Utah 13, 197 P. 222 (Utah 1921)
• Madsen v. Madsen, 72 Utah 96, 269 P. 132 (Utah 1928)
• State v. Parker, 104 Utah 23, 137 P.2d 626 (Utah 1943)

Source

• Landing page: Utah Private Letter Rulings
• Official ruling: Utah PLR 00-015
• Fetch note: the exact official URL returned HTTP 404 to a direct request and was then retrieved through Sofya.

Original ruling text

00-015

Response May 23, 2000

REQUEST LETTER

4-27-00

Marc B. Johnson:

The Utah State Commission assesses pet groomers a sales tax for the service-only business. The commission seeks to justify the sales tax by designating dogs and cats as "tangible personal property." Paradoxically, thousands of unwanted dogs and cats are destroyed every year at animal shelters throughout the state. When a pet groomer pays sales tax for cleaning "tangible personal property" that has no value at an animal shelter when it is neither claimed nor adopted, he is taxed unfairly, as if paying sales tax for air.

But, in fact, dogs and cats have immense value, especially to the disabled and the elderly. Medical science long ago determined that dogs and cats are vitally important to the health and well-being of the elderly, especially in controlling high blood pressure. In the case of blood pressure control, dogs and cats function as non-addictive, cost effective, natural medication.

The Utah State Tax Commission should either: (1) recognize that after dogs and cats are destroyed at animal shelters the have no value as "tangible personal property" at terminate the ludicrous sales tax for grooming them, or (2) recognize that the company of dogs and cats is vitally important to the disabled and the elderly and grant pet groomers a special exemption.

Thank You,

NAME

RESPONSE LETTER

May 23, 2000

NAME

COMPANY

RE: Advisory Opinion Concerning Dog and Cat Grooming Services

Dear NAME,

You have asked the Tax Commission to stop applying Utah=s sales tax on dog and cat grooming services either by declaring that dogs and cats are not personal property or by granting a special exemption for these services because of the great benefit dogs and cats bring to the disabled and elderly. Unfortunately, the Tax Commission may only enforce the laws enacted by the Utah State Legislature. We do not have the authority to enact new laws or amend those already enacted.

The current law requires the Tax Commission to collect sales tax on the amount paid or charged for services to repair, renovate, clean, or wash tangible personal property. Utah Code Ann. '59-12-103(1)(g),(h). ATangible personal property@ is defined in Utah Code. Ann. '59-12-102(29) to include not only all tangible or corporeal things and substances which are dealt in or capable of being possessed or exchanged, but all other physically existing articles or things. With the Legislature enacting such a broad definition of tangible personal property, the Tax Commission may not on its own deem that dogs and cats fall outside these statutory boundaries. In addition, the Utah Supreme Court has for over a century declared that dogs and other animals are personal property for purposes of Utah=s statutes. See Jenkins v. Ballantyne , 8 Utah 245, 30 P. 760 (Utah 1892); State v. McKee , 17 Utah 370, 53 P. 733 (Utah 1898); Utah v. Bates , 25 Utah 1, 69 P. 70 (Utah 1902); Watkins v. Jensen , 58 Utah 13, 197 P. 222 (Utah 1921); Madsen v. Madsen , 72 Utah 96, 269 P. 132 (Utah 1928); State v. Parker , 104 Utah 23, 137 P.2d 626 (Utah 1943). Accordingly, as dog and cat grooming services involve the repair, renovation, cleaning, or washing of tangible personal property, these services are taxable.

You also suggest that the Tax Commission should grant a special exemption on pet grooming services because of benefit the dogs and cats provide to the disabled and elderly. While the sale of prescription medicine is specifically exempted from taxation under Utah Code Ann. '59-12-104(10), the definition of Amedicine@ for purposes of this exemption is limited and does not include dogs and cats or the services to groom them. Accordingly, the exemption for medicine does not apply to dog and cat grooming services.

Only the Legislature can provide an exemption for dog and cat grooming services. Were the Legislature to enact such an exemption, the Tax Commission would have the duty to enforce it. Please contact us if you have any other questions.

For the Commission,

Marc B. Johnson

Commissioner