Coast Elevator Co. v. State Board of Equalization

186 Cal. App. 3d 206, 230 Cal. Rptr. 376, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2099
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 2, 1986
DocketCiv. No. 24362
StatusPublished

This text of 186 Cal. App. 3d 206 (Coast Elevator Co. v. State Board of Equalization) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coast Elevator Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 186 Cal. App. 3d 206, 230 Cal. Rptr. 376, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2099 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

Opinion

CARR, J.

This case presents the question of whether costs for labor and overhead attributable to work performed in the assembly of components of an elevator system prior to attachment to realty are properly subject to the sales tax. We conclude they are and affirm the judgment.

Facts

Appellant Coast Elevator Company (Coast) is a licensed contractor in the field of elevator construction and installation. Coast installs elevator systems [208]*208designed specifically for the buildings in which they operate. The price charged is a lump sum which includes the costs of the system components (which are either fixtures or materials) and charges for the labor involved in installing or affixing them to the building.

When Coast is notified its bid has been accepted, it purchases from various vendors all of the component parts of the elevator system. Those components arrive ready for installation and when installed by Coast are unchanged in form or function. Coast performs certain preinstallation assembly of components in order to facilitate their affixation to the structure. William Shrum, Coast’s president, testified that workers at Coast’s factory mounted certain components on panels with spring devices or screws. The panels themselves are prefabricated and when purchased by Coast are ready to receive the components which are mounted on them. The panels are then placed in prefabricated steel cabinets to facilitate on-site installation.

Respondent State Board of Equalization (the Board) conducted an audit of Coast’s records and assessed sales tax on the sales price of certain portions of the elevator systems supplied pursuant to the lump sum contracts for all periods from April 1, 1965, through June 30, 1977. Specifically, the Board determined that Coast owed sales tax on that portion of costs for labor and overhead attributable to factory preinstallation assembly of components such as that described above. Coast paid the assessed amount, including interest and penalty, timely filed with the Board a claim for a refund, and when the refund was denied, commenced the instant litigation.

The trial court denied all relief to Coast and in its tentative decision held it was proper for the Board to consider Coast a manufacturer of fixtures because of the assembly labor performed at its own factory.1 Coast appeals.

Discussion

California Administrative Code, title 18, section 1521 (hereafter section 1521),2 provides that “Construction contractors are retailers of fixtures [209]*209which they furnish and install in the performance of construction contracts and tax applies to their sales of the fixtures.” (§ 1521, subd. (b)(2)(B)1.)3 As applied to contracts for the purchase and installation of elevator systems, the contractor is the retailer of those portions of the system which are considered fixtures. The sales price of the fixtures sold includes any services that are part of the sale but excludes any costs for labor or services rendered in installing the fixtures. (Rev. &Tax. Code, § 6011, subds. (b)(1), (c)(3).)4 If the contract does not state the sales price of the fixture, as with lump sum contracts like those at issue herein, the sales price is deemed to be the cost price of the fixture. (§ 1521, subd. (b)(2)(B)2.)

When the contractor purchases the fixtures in completed condition, the cost price is the price paid by him for the fixtures. (Ibid.) But when the contractor is the manufacturer of the fixture, the cost price is deemed to be the price at which similar fixtures in like quantities ready for installation are sold by him to other contractors. (Ibid.) If similar fixtures in like quantities are not sold by the contractor, the cost price is the amount stated in price lists, bid sheets or other records. (Ibid.) If the cost price of fixtures manufactured by the contractor cannot be computed using any of these methods, it is deemed to be the aggregate of several factors including the cost of the materials, labor, overhead and profit as derived from the records of the contractor. (Ibid.) The cost price also includes jobsite fabrication labor and its share of manufacturing overhead. Jobsite fabrication labor includes assembly labor performed before a component or fixture is attached to the structure. (Ibid.)

With regard to the elevators it installs, Coast contends it purchases only fixtures in their completed condition and its sales tax liability is therefore limited to the price it paid for the fixtures installed by it. As Coast purchases components designated as fixtures by section 1521, subdivision (a)(5) and installs them without changing either their physical form or their function, it asserts it installs fixtures purchased in their completed condition and the [210]*210proper measure of the sales tax liability is the price paid for the components. The Board determined Coast was a manufacturer of fixtures by virtue of the preinstallation labor performed in assembling at its factory certain components designated as fixtures and assessed sales tax on the cost of labor and the prorated share of overhead attributable to those operations.

The distinction between installation labor, which is not subject to sales tax, and labor attributed to the cost price of the fixture, which is subject to sales tax, is that the contractor is in fact the retailer of fixtures which he installs. (§ 1521, subd. (b)(2)(B)!.) Labor costs for installing the completed fixture are not part of the sales price and are not subject to the sales tax (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6011, subd. (c)(3)) as they are costs for the service of installation and not part of the cost of the finished product sold. Labor costs for assembling or fabricating the fixture, by contrast, are properly subject to sales tax because they are a part of the cost of generating the finished product that is installed and thereby a part of the sales price of the fixture. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6011, subd. (a)(2).)

Coast claims the Board’s method of determining taxable labor is dependent upon the order of installation and whether certain labor is taxable is governed by where and when it is performed. It urges that by assembling one complete fixture to another at the factory it does no more than connect fixtures which will be connected to one another after installation and the labor involved should be considered installation labor.

Coast fails to recognize that the difference in where and when the labor is performed provides the key to the distinction in tax treatment. The contractor is the retailer of the fixtures he installs. (§ 1521, subd. (b)(2)(B)1.) If he installs fixtures piece by piece in the elevator shaft, first attaching one component to the structure and then another, only the cost of the fixtures is taxable.5 Were he to sell those components to another contractor for installation, no more than the value of the components in their unassembled form would be transferred and subject to tax upon transfer of title. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6006.) But if he preassembles fixtures into units and then sells those to another contractor for installation, the value of those assembled units would be greater than [211]*211the aggregate cost of the constituent parts and would reflect the labor spent in assembling them. The labor to assemble the units is a part of the cost of the new unit which is installed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wolfe v. Lipsy
163 Cal. App. 3d 633 (California Court of Appeal, 1985)
Montgomery Elevator Co. v. State Board of Equalization
118 Cal. App. 3d 887 (California Court of Appeal, 1981)
Honeywell, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization
48 Cal. App. 3d 897 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 Cal. App. 3d 206, 230 Cal. Rptr. 376, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coast-elevator-co-v-state-board-of-equalization-calctapp-1986.