PPT by non CA resident?

[corvetteguy]

Hey all, I have a question. Can a Nevada resident sell an on-roster pistol in California while here on vacation?

A friend has a pistol I want at a great friend price but he's here with it now from Nevada.

Can we just go to an FFL and do a PPT?

Thanks,

David

[P.W.]

I have the same question but it pertains to an Out of state seller who has a CA Legal AK Rifle which is offlist and is visiting family currently. Could He transfer the rifle through an instate FFL as an out of state transfer without having to wait for him to go back home and ship it ?

[Librarian]

PPT is set up in the DROS software to accept only CA ID, or military ID with PCS orders to CA.

So, PPT is not available to an out of state participant; such transfers would be interstate transfers.

It is, however, legal for a non-CA resident to go to a CA FFL with a firearm and sell to a CA resident.

[BannedinBritain]

The right dealer would simply treat it as a shipped in firearm. You could both go to the dealer, dealer puts the seller's firearm in his books as a shipped in firearm, buyer does a 4473 and DROS and waits the ten days. This all assumes it actually is a rostered handgun or qualifies for some other exemption...if it isn't, you're out of luck.

Fees would be regular transfer fee + DROS. No tax as the firearm is from a private individual.

[kemasa]

There is no means of putting it in the bound book as a "shipped in firearm", it is only where it is received from, not how it was received.

Yes, it would need to be on the certified list and done as a normal dealer transfer. No sales tax would need to be collected IF it is documented that it is a private sale, an occasional sale and that the person does not have a business. The fees would not be limited as it would not be a PPT since the seller is not a CA resident.

[BannedinBritain]

There is no means of putting it in the bound book as a "shipped in firearm", it is only where it is received from, not how it was received.

Yes, it would need to be on the certified list and done as a normal dealer transfer. No sales tax would need to be collected IF it is documented that it is a private sale, an occasional sale and that the person does not have a business. The fees would not be limited as it would not be a PPT since the seller is not a CA resident.

On the curious side, how exactly do you "document" this?

[kemasa]

How do you document that it is "a private sale, an occasional sale and that the person does not have a business"? The seller writes a letter stating that as they are the only one who knows and who can document it.

[BannedinBritain]

How do you document that it is "a private sale, an occasional sale and that the person does not have a business"? The seller writes a letter stating that as they are the only one who knows and who can document it.

Right...so really it's not worth the trouble of getting a letter from them. If the source of the firearm is not a dealer, then all the other information is just what would be a "shop policy" requirement.

[kemasa]

Huh? It is not "shop policy", it is what the CA BOE said to get. If the FFL has the documentation to show why sales tax was not collected, then the FFL is protected. Without the letter the FFL has NOTHING and the CA BOE could demand the sales tax, interest and penalties. I am not sure of how you get to thinking that it is not worth the trouble of getting the letter from them. The FFL could go the easy route and just always collect sales tax on the MSRP of any firearm (receipts could be falsified), is that what you want????

I can only assume, based on your responses, that you are not a FFL and don't have a business, most likely never had to deal with the CA BOE.

In the case of a PPT, it is assumed that it is a private sale, so documentation is not required, but in the case of a non-CA resident, it can not be processed as a PPT.

[BannedinBritain]

Huh? It is not "shop policy", it is what the CA BOE said to get. If the FFL has the documentation to show why sales tax was not collected, then the FFL is protected. Without the letter the FFL has NOTHING and the CA BOE could demand the sales tax, interest and penalties.

If the source of the firearm is not a retailer or dealer, it does not even fall under the realm of the BOE code...thus no tax is applicable.

I am not sure of how you get to thinking that it is not worth the trouble of getting the letter from them. The FFL could go the easy route and just always collect sales tax on the MSRP of any firearm (receipts could be falsified), is that what you want????

So could "letters". I've communicated regularly with a number of shops in the area...and at the gun show. You're the first I've heard of that requires a letter from the individual selling the firearm. I'm not saying it's wrong...just unnecessary...overkill from BOE paranoia.

I can only assume, based on your responses, that you are not a FFL and don't have a business, most likely never had to deal with the CA BOE.

I am not an FFL holder...I have had direct business dealings with the BOE as the shop manager with the owner present. The advice we received was very plain..."not from a retailer or dealer, no tax". If an individual uses an FFL to ship their firearm, a copy of their ID would suffice for documentation of a non-taxable sale.

I can only assume you are a very low volume dealer. Working with 300 transfers a month will motivate you to only require what is legally necessary.

If simply having an FFL is what you believe makes you correct, you're welcome to that opinion. I could also understand if you got some "advice" from someone at BOE stating a letter would suffice for documentation...but that doesn't make it necessary either.

In the case of a PPT, it is assumed that it is a private sale, so documentation is not required, but in the case of a non-CA resident, it can not be processed as a PPT.

This is the only thing I think I agree with you on.

[kemasa]

A FFL could ship the firearm privately, not showing that they have a business, but sales tax would be required to be collected.

Yes, letters could be falsified, but at least the FFL has the letter to go on and shows that they had reason to believe that it was exempt from sales tax. Without the letter, the FFL has nothing. You can claim that it is not required, but I know of places that require it, the BOE says to document it, so who should I believe? You should understand that it is not just that it comes from a private party, there are other requirements. If the person in another state is making a business out of it (which would be illegal in CA), sales tax would required to be collected.

There are many FFLs who claim that they don't need to collect sales tax when the firearm comes from out of state, regardless of who it comes from. This is wrong, so if you get your advice from those FFLs you are asking for trouble. It is not BOE paranoia, that is just a stupid personal attack. It is common sense (which is not common) to document the transfer so that you have a better defense should the BOE try to claim that you owe the money. If you wait until later, you are going to have a much harder time proving your case.

What motivates me is a desire to not owe the state a lot of money. Your "motivation" means that you are getting sloppy and could have a problem in the future if there is an audit. It is not a big deal to get a letter. The more transactions, the greater the risk if the person who gave you the "advice" is wrong and that additional documentation is suggested.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I have reasons to base my opinion on and I do have a business, so I have a stake in the matter, not just an employee.

BTW, there are also cases where sales tax IS to be collected with a PPT, such as where the FFL finds the buyer (for example, a consignment) or if the FFL gets involved in determining the sales price.

[BannedinBritain]

I'm not trying to get "personal" here...I'm simply pointing out you believe certain things are necessary when in fact they are not required.

If by "sloppy" you mean our process, which was the result of the discussion we had with the BOE auditor (contrary to popular opinion she didn't have horns and was actually very pleasant) and our attorney, then I guess we are sloppy. A copy of the seller's ID is sufficient to distinguish it from a retail sale for tax purposes. A letter may make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it's not a requirement. That's all I've said.

I guess the loss of my job and possible criminal charges (yes, they can hold us lowly employees responsible as well) is not enough of a "stake" in your eyes to have knowledge of what's required...You yourself said there are "many FFLs" doing it wrong...so it's not that far of a stretch to say you're erring on the side of caution...nothing wrong with that, it's just not "the law".

[kemasa]

It is not required by law and I never said it was, but it is a very good idea and that does not mean that you should not do it. The letter documents all of which is required to not collect sales tax, which a copy of the ID does not.

The next auditor might have a different idea and that is common.

You need to document it in some manner, which you admit to by copying the ID. I had a case where a FFL was selling a private firearm and that is a problem as he has a FFL and a business. The BOE does not seem to consider that case. In that case it is possible that sales tax should be collected because the person had a firearms business. The letter documents that the person is claiming to not have a business (if they sign it) or that you can deal with the issue, whereas just a copy of the person's ID does not.

[Joewy]

What if you own property in California and you keep your guns there but have an out of state DL or no DL at all??

[kemasa]

Get a CA ID.