Statute Annotations › Tennessee › Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2004

Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2004

Excise tax: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
Tennessee
Case notes
4
Cited in passing
3
Citing cases indexed
12
Case dates
2010–2020
Screened through
2022-01-05
Courts' treatment: live
No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.
This reflects what the reviewed cases said, not legislative action: a later amendment or repeal by the legislature would not appear here unless a reviewed case discussed it.

7 citing cases reviewed of 12 in the citation index: 4 interpreted the section (annotated below), 3 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2022-01-05 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2004?

These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.

Affiliated group—ownership requirements

Section 67-4-2004(2) limits affiliated-group status to the specified more-than-50%-ownership relationships, and subsection (34) defines the relevant persons to include business entities but not natural individuals.

Valenti Mid-South Management, LLC v. Reagan Farr, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee · filed 2010-11-15(2), (34)

Valenti Management and Valenti Realty are both majority-owned by the same individual, Darrell Valenti, but he does not qualify as a “person” under the Franchise Tax Law. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2004(34) (defining “person” or “taxpayer” to include business entities but not natural individuals). Because no domestic person, within the meaning of the Franchise Tax Law, owns more than half of Valenti Management, it cannot utilize subsection (iv) to form an affiliated group.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Doing business in Tennessee

Section 67-4-2004(14)(A) defines doing business in Tennessee to include purposeful in-state activity undertaken for gain, benefit, or advantage, including entering into a commercial lease.

J-Star Holdings, LLC v. The Pantry, Inc. · filed 2013-01-02(14)(A)

For purposes of the excise tax, “[d]oing business in Tennessee” is defined as “any activity purposefully engaged in within Tennessee, by a person with the object of gain, benefit, or advantage . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2004(14)(A). Entering into a commercial lease falls within the definition.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Business earnings—definition and tests

Section 67-4-2004(4) defines business earnings through transactional and functional tests; earnings from property are business earnings when the property’s acquisition, use, management, or disposition is an integral part of the taxpayer’s regular business, and settlement proceeds take the nature of the right compromised.

Emerachem Power, LLC v. Gerregano · filed 2020-06-01(4)

In examining the definition of business earnings under Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-4-2004(4), two tests have been identified. The section of the statute defining “business earnings” as “[e]arnings arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer’s trade or business” has been referred to as the “transactional test,” whereas earnings “from tangible and intangible property, if the acquisition, use, management or disposition of the property constitutes an integral part of the taxpayer’s regular trade or business operations” has been called the “functional test.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 67-4-2004(1) treats gains from property as business earnings under the functional test when the taxpayer’s control of the property materially contributes to producing business earnings.

Blue Bell Creameries, LP v. Roberts · filed 2011-01-24(1)

We hold that Taxpayer’s acquisition and sale of the stock therefore contributed materially to the production of business earnings arising from the sale of Blue Bell ice cream and that Taxpayer’s capital gains thus qualify as business earnings pursuant to the functional test.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
3 more cases cited this section only in passing

These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.

Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board, the court cites Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2004 only in a comparative parenthetical listing statutes that amended the definition of business income to include a functional test. It construes and applies California’s analogous statute, § 25120, not Tennessee’s statute, and makes no holding about what § 67-4-2004 means or requires. opinion →
Bearing Distributors, Inc. v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee, the court did not interpret or apply § 67-4-2004(7). It merely reported that the trial court cited it as an example of a Franchise and Excise Tax Act provision referencing GAAP, while deciding whether GAAP should apply to the Business Tax Act. opinion →
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, the statute appears only in a string citation identifying a Tennessee case as superseded. The court construed Arizona's statute, not Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2004, and did not adopt or analyze the Tennessee statute. opinion →

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2004. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace