Did Texas's tax policy committee view painting as maintenance under the proposed 1987 real-property repair and remodeling rule?

Plain-English summary

The requester commented on proposed Rule 3.357 and argued that repainting should be treated as maintenance, that the proposal's 1% minor-repair rule should be replaced with a less rigid standard or a 10% threshold, and that direct-pay-permit relationships should be addressed.

Executive Counsel Wade Anderson reported that the tax policy committee had decided painting should not be considered maintenance except when it was a regularly scheduled activity.

But the response was expressly provisional: the agency would reexamine the entire rule and consider the comments before adopting any final rule.

What this means for you

This document records a rulemaking-stage policy view, not a definitive holding on a painting contract. It supports only the committee's tentative distinction between regularly scheduled painting and other painting work.

Common questions

Did the committee consider all painting to be maintenance? No. Its then-current view recognized maintenance treatment only for regularly scheduled painting.

Was Rule 3.357 final? No. The response called it proposed and said the entire rule would be reexamined.

Did the agency adopt the requester's suggested 10% threshold? The letter does not say so. It only says the comments would be considered.

Did the response decide a particular nonresidential painting job? No.

Citations and references

• Proposed 34 Tex. Admin. Code Rule 3.357 — 1987 proposal concerning real-property repair and remodeling.

Source

• STAR search: https://star.comptroller.texas.gov/search?doc_type_code=L&tax_type_code=SST
• Opinion: https://star.comptroller.texas.gov/view/8712L1030D12

Original ruling text

Bob Bullock
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Austin, Texas 78774

December 16, 1987

Dear **:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 11, 1987,
concerning our proposed rule, 3.357, on real property repair and
remodeling.

As you may be aware, the tax policy committee has looked at the
issue of painting and has decided that it should not be consider-
ed maintenance except when it is a regular scheduled activity.

However, we will be reexamining the entire rule and will take your
comments into consideration before any final rule is adopted.

Sincerely,
Wade Anderson
Executive Counsel

December 11, 1987

Comptroller of Public Accounts
P. O. Box 13528
Austin, Texas 78711

Attn: Mr. Wade Anderson
Executive Counsel

PROPOSED RULE 3.357
REAL PROPERTY REPAIR AND REMODELING

Dear Mr. Anderson:

We wish to make the following comments and suggestions regarding this
proposed rule.

1. The definition of repair should be amended to delete "repainting."
   Painting is clearly a maintenance activity as defined in (a) (2) to
   prevent deterioration of real property.

2. While we concur with the basic concepts in (b) (3) and (c)(2), we
   believe the use of the 1% rule for minor repairs is too restrictive
   and rigid. We believe the wording should be changed to "is a minor
   part of the overall labor charge."

If you still believe that a percentage number should be used, it is
our opinion that the percentage should be 10%.

3. We suggest that a paragraph be added to cover the relationships
   with repairmen when the customer issues a direct pay permit.

Your consideration of these suggestions will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,