Is a legal videographer's videotape of a deposition taxable in Utah, the same way a court stenographer's written transcript is exempt?

Plain-English summary

A Certified Legal Videographer asked the Commission to reconsider two older rulings (PLR 02-031 and PLR 96-154) holding that videotaped depositions are taxable sales of tangible personal property. His argument: the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 30(B)) now let a party taking a deposition choose sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic recording as equally valid ways to create the legal record — so if a stenographer's paper transcript is exempt as a professional service, a videographer's recording of the same testimony should be too, especially since he passed a certification test administered by the same organization (the National Court Reporters Association) that certifies stenographers.

The Commission dug into the certification question first and found the analogy weaker than claimed: Utah Code Ann. § 58-74-102(3) defines a "certified court reporter" only as a certified shorthand or voice reporter — it doesn't mention videographers at all. Utah's licensing agency (DOPL) has no license category for legal videographers, and confirmed that video recording isn't a licensable activity under Utah law. A call to the NCRA itself revealed the taxpayer held a different certification (Certified Legal Video Specialist) from the one held by Registered Professional Reporters, using a different test — and that in the NCRA's experience, video is normally used alongside a certified court reporter who's still making the actual transcript, not as a standalone way of creating "the record."

The Commission then surveyed other states and found no consensus: Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Rhode Island, and (until a later statutory exemption) Texas all taxed videotaped depositions as sales of tangible personal property, while California, Florida, and New Jersey took a different approach (no tax on the first litigation copy, or treating the videographer as the taxable consumer of the blank tape). With no Utah statutory exemption and no clear multistate trend, the Commission found no reason to change its position.

The real reasoning, though, rests on the "essence of the transaction" (true object) test the Commission had already applied in PLR 02-031: for a stenographer, the object of the transaction is the service — taking down and transcribing the witness's words — with the paper transcript being just the byproduct, the same way an attorney's legal service (not the physical document) is what a client is really paying for. For a videographer, by contrast, the object of the transaction is the tape itself, no different in kind from any other videotape (a wedding video, for example) — regardless of the videographer's professional training or certification. The skills required to record video are fundamentally different from the skills required to transcribe testimony verbatim, and that distinction, not the civil procedure rules or licensing technicalities, is what controls. The Commission affirmed PLR 02-031: sale of a deposition videotape is a taxable sale of tangible personal property, unless some other general TPP exemption applies.

What this means for you

Legal videographers and videography businesses

Recording a deposition doesn't get the same tax treatment as a stenographer's transcription service just because civil procedure rules treat both as acceptable ways to create a legal record, or because you hold a professional certification. The tax question turns on what the customer is really paying for — the Commission views a videotape purchase as buying a physical product (the recording), not a professional service, regardless of your skill or training.

Court reporting firms subcontracting video services

If you resell a subcontracted videographer's deposition tape to your client, that sale carries its own sales tax exposure separate from your (exempt) stenographic transcript services — don't assume bundling the two together changes the video portion's taxability.

Attorneys and litigants ordering deposition records

Expect sales tax to apply to the cost of a videotaped deposition record, while a stenographic transcript of the same deposition remains exempt — the format you choose under Rule 30(B) for creating the legal record has real sales tax consequences even though the civil procedure rules treat the formats as equally valid for litigation purposes.

Common questions

Q: Why does a stenographer's transcript stay tax-exempt while a videotape doesn't, if both are valid ways to record testimony under Rule 30(B)?
A: Because the Commission's sales tax analysis doesn't turn on litigation validity — it turns on the "essence of the transaction." A transcript's true object is the stenographer's transcription service; a videotape's true object is the physical recording, treated like any other consumer videotape.

Q: Does having the same NCRA-style certification as a stenographer change the outcome?
A: No. The Commission found the taxpayer's certification (Certified Legal Video Specialist) was actually a different test from the one Registered Professional Reporters take, and in any event certification/licensing status doesn't change the underlying nature of what's being sold.

Q: Could this outcome change if video certification or licensing requirements become more rigorous in the future?
A: The Commission specifically said it would still look to the nature of the transaction (tape vs. service) even if licensing requirements tighten — it would have to be shown that court videography is meaningfully different from other videography, and that its service component is similar enough to stenographic transcription, before the outcome would change.

Citations and references

Statutes and rules:

• Utah Code Ann. § 58-74-102(3) (defines "certified court reporter" — shorthand/voice reporters only, not videographers)
• Utah R. Civ. P. 30(B) (deposition recording methods: sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic)

Prior Commission ruling relied upon:

• Utah PLR 02-031 (essence-of-the-transaction test for stenographic transcripts vs. videotapes) — affirmed by this ruling
• Utah PLR 96-154 (cited by the taxpayer as also addressed by this reconsideration)

Source

• Landing page: https://tax.utah.gov/commission/rulings/
• Original PDF: https://files.tax.utah.gov/tax/commission/ruling/05-002.pdf

Original ruling text

REQUEST LETTER

05-002

NAME
ADDRESS

Re: Request for Advisory Opinion

To the Commissioner:

On behalf of my client, NAME, we are requesting your opinion on the matter of “Legal Video
Services.” Please be advised that we have reviewed previous Private Letter Rulings (02-031 and 96-
154, copies attached hereto) which are related to this matter but find, due to changes in the Federal
and State Rules of Civil Procedure, that there may be a need to reconsider these prior rulings as they
relate to legal video services.

Utah State Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30(B)(2) (a copy has been attached) which relates to
depositions upon oral examination, states that: “A party taking the deposition shall state in the notice
the method by which the testimony shall be recorded. Unless the court orders otherwise, it may be
recorded by sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic means, and the party taking the deposition
shall bear the cost of the recording.”

This ruling makes recording of testimony by “sound” or by “sound-and-visual” an actual legal
record, on par with written testimony recorded steno graphically. In fact, my client has, on many
occasions, video taped testimony when there has been no stenographer present. My client is
employed by court reporting agencies to produce the record exactly as they employ stenographic
reporters to produce the record. The parties involved determine which respective format (video or
paper) is desired. Based on this view under Rule 30(B)(2), the only difference in the end product of a
recorded deposition is whether the recorded testimony is provided to the parties on “paper” or on
“plastic tape or disk.” Many times attorneys will request that both a stenographer and a legal
videographer be present.

My client is a Certified Legal Videographer which requires passing the same written test which must
be taken to become a Certified Legal Stenographer. These tests and certifications are administered
and awarded by the National Court Reporters Association. Utah State Tax Commission.

Accordingly, my client is required to have the same legal knowledge and skill set required of
certified legal stenographers.

My client subcontracts with court reporting firms. He provides the deposition record (as recorded on
video tape or disk) to the court reporting firms which in turn provide the legal record) provided by
my client are exempt from sales taxation as are the legal stenographic services and paper transcript
which are provided by stenographers.

We appreciate your time and consideration on this matter. Should you have any questions, please

Page 2

contact me at PHONE.

                                              Sincerely,


                                              NAME
                                              ADDRESS



                                     RESPONSE LETTER

                                              October 21, 2005

NAME
ADDRESS

RE: Private Letter Ruling Request – 05-002

Dear NAME,

     We received your request regarding sales tax issues related to video records of legal proceedings

created by your client, NAME (“taxpayer”), certified by the National Court Reporters Association as a
Certified Legal Videographer. You stated you had reviewed two previous private letter rulings (PLR’s) on
the subject (02-031 and 96-154). However, you feel changes in both federal and Utah rules of civil
procedure warrant a different outcome. You also assert that “the only difference in the end product of a
recorded deposition is whether the recorded testimony is provided to the parties on ‘paper’ or on ‘plastic
tape or disk.’”

     We begin by examining licensing or other certification requirements for court video recording

services and the rules of civil procedure to which you referred. Under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 30
(B), the party taking a deposition may select the method of recording it, unless a court orders otherwise.
The methods include sound, sound-and-visual, and stenographic means. The party taking the deposition is
required to bear the costs of the recording.
Utah Code Ann. §58-74-102(3) defines a certified court reporter as a shorthand reporter certified
by the National Court Reporters Association or a voice reporter certified by the National Verbatim
Reporters Association. The statute does not refer to or define Certified Legal Videographers. A search of
the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) database does not produce verification
of a license of any kind for your client.

     A telephone call to DOPL yielded the following information. First, your client does not have a

license as a certified shorthand or voice reporter. Second, the making of a video record of a proceeding is
not presently an activity for which one can be licensed under Utah law.

     A telephone call to the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) revealed that your client is

a Certified Legal Video Specialist. The test administered to receive that certification, however, is not the
same test as the test administered to Registered Professional Reporters. Additionally, the NCRA said
video is used in connection with a certified court reporter making a transcript. The person with whom we
spoke was not aware of a circumstance where only video was employed to make a record. If this

Page 3

information, as reported to us, is not correct, please feel free to contact us with the correct information
and supporting documentation.
Based on this research, we do not believe that the license or certification requirements under
DOPL or NCRA apply specifically to your client, nor do we believe that those provisions affect our
position. Furthermore, we do not believe the provisions in Rule 30 (B) that you cited affect our position.
We believe that the videotape differs substantially from the service of transcribing the words of a witness
to the printed page. The difference in the skill sets necessary to render the services is reflected in the
different tests and certifications provided by national organizations, and the fact that one need not have a
license issued by the State of Utah to be a videographer.
In addition, we have researched other states to determine if there is a general consensus on the
treatment of court video records. We find that other jurisdictions are split on whether the sale of the video
record is the sale of tangible personal property. Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Rhode Island and Texas have
administratively determined that the sales of videotaped depositions are the sale of tangible personal
property and are subject to sales tax. To our knowledge, neither the Rhode Island courts nor its
Legislature have altered the administrative decision. A Texas statute passed after the Texas Comptroller
issued his decision has provided an exemption. There is no statutory exemption in Utah.
California has determined there is no sales tax due on the first copy provided to parties to the
litigation. Florida has reached a similar conclusion, noting that the videographer is the consumer of the
videotape, and must pay sales tax on the purchase price. New Jersey’s decision is similar to Florida’s.
Additionally, New Jersey noted that if the cost of the service is not separately stated, the entire amount
charged is subject to sales tax. After our research into the policies of other stands, we find no reason to
change our current policy.

     In PLR 02-031, which you have cited, the Commission noted that transcription services have

historically been exempted from sales tax. We reiterate that the reason for this is that the object of the
transaction is the court reporter’s service itself, more than the physical record. A written transcript
provides a “cold record” containing a verbatim reproduction of the words spoken by a witness. It is the
service of taking down and transcribing those words that is the true object of the transaction. This is
consistent with our general position on legal documents themselves. That is, it is the legal service
provided by the attorney that is the essence of the transaction, not the actual physical document.

    A critical distinction is that the skills and abilities required for recording a video differ from those

of someone transcribing a court hearing. We continue to make this distinction. We also find that the more
stringent training and licensing requirements suggest a stronger emphasis on the service aspect of the
court reporter to create this transcription, rather than the report itself.

     In contrast, as we noted in PLR 02-031, the object of the transaction for purchasing videotapes,

whether legal in nature or not, such as wedding videos, is the tape itself or the tangible personal property,
not the service provided by the videographer. Regardless of any professional training or certification
requirements, we continue to hold that the very differences between stenographing and videographing for
legal proceedings are greater than the similarities between videotapes for any purpose, whether legal or
general commercial. Consequently, even should professional training and licensing requirements for court
videograhic recordings become more stringent in the future, we would still consider the nature of
transaction. That is, whether a buyer of a videotaped record purchasing tangible personal property (the
tape) or a service. We believe it would have to be established that court videography is sufficiently unique
from other types of videography to warrant different treatment for sales tax purposes. At the same time, it
would have to be shown that the service aspect of court video recording is sufficiently similar to
providing a written transcription so as to warrant similar tax treatment.

Page 4

     In summary, after reviewing your request, we affirm the decision in Private Letter Ruling 02-031.

The sale of a videotape of a deposition is the sale of tangible personal property and is subject to sales tax,
unless it is otherwise exempted on the same bases as other sales of tangible personal property.

    Should the facts be different from those represented in this letter, our opinion may change

accordingly. Thank you for your inquiry into this matter.

                                                       For the Commission,



                                                       Marc B. Johnson
                                                       Commissioner

MBJ/SR
05-002