Statute Annotations › Tennessee › Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-202

Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-202

Tax on sales of tangible personal property: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
Tennessee
Case notes
5
Cited in passing
9
Citing cases indexed
15
Case dates
1986–2001
Screened through
2022-09-14
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No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.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.

14 citing cases reviewed of 15 in the citation index: 5 interpreted the section (annotated below), 9 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2022-09-14 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-202?

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

Taxable sales of tangible personal property

Section 67-6-202 requires sales tax to be computed on gross sales, including every retail sale; direct sales placed through a taxpayer’s office count in those sales.

Tennessee Farmers' Cooperative v. State ex rel. Jackson · filed 1987-08-31

Rather, the Retailers’ Sales Tax Act specifically requires that “the tax is to be computed on gross sales for the purpose of remitting the amount of tax due the state and is to include each and every retail sale.” T.C.A. § 67-6-202. See also T.C.A. § 67-6-102(7) (Supp.1986) (defining gross sales). Thus, not only do all of Plaintiffs sales activities form the proper basis on which the Commissioner evaluates the principal business of a taxpayer, but, absent some proof to the contrary in the record, we must conclude that the Commissioner was justified in including the direct sales made by Plaintiff through the LaV-ergne offices.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 67-6-202 imposes the retail sales tax on the seller of tangible personal property; passing the tax cost to a buyer does not make the buyer the taxpayer.

Beare Co. v. Olsen · filed 1986-03-17

Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 67-6-101, et seq., otherwise known as the “Retailers’ Sales Tax Act,” imposes a tax upon “the business of selling tangible personal property at retail in this state.” T.C.A. § 67-6-202. ... As the vendor of taxable sales, the City of Humboldt is the taxpayer in this instance.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 67-6-202 taxes retail sales of tangible personal property in Tennessee, but the court held that a sale for resale or a sale completed outside Tennessee with the interstate-commerce exemption is not taxable under the statute.

Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston · filed 1998-03-30(a)

Based on the provisions of the Retailers’ Sales Tax Act quoted above and on this Court’s analysis in Eusco, we conclude that the sale of tangible personal property by Colemill Enterprises, Inc. to Bessemer Plywood Corporation was not taxable because it was a sale for resale. If such sale was F.O.B. to an out-of-state destination (as was the sale to Filtrex, Inc.), then the sale to Bessemer Plywood Corporation was not subject to taxation as a sale of tangible personal property for the additional reasons (i) that it occurred outside the State of Tennessee and (ii) that the interstate commerce exemption applies.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 67-6-202(a) imposes sales tax on the sales price of tangible personal property sold in Tennessee.

AT & T v. Johnson · filed 2001-01-30(a)

Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-202(a), sales tax is imposed at a stated percentage of the sales price of tangible personal property sold in this state. ... The engineering services in this case were an integral “part of the sale of tangible personal property,” and thus were subject to sales tax.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 67-6-202 taxes the sales price of tangible personal property; absent an exemption, that price includes a contractual commitment satisfied by providing replacement parts under a warranty.

Covington Pike Toyota, Inc. v. Cardwell · filed 1992-03-02

Without the exemption for replacement parts or goods provided in § 67-6-324, the providing of such goods would be subject to sales taxes even though they are transferred without cost pursuant to a warranty. This is because the sales tax imposed on selling tangible personal property is imposed, pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-202, on “the sales price of each item or article of tangible personal property.” “Sales price” is defined, in § 67-6-102(24), as “the total amount for which ... tangible personal property is sold ... valued in money, whether paid in money or otherwise.” In the absence of § 67-6-324, the satisfaction of a contractual commitment to provide replacement parts would constitute “the total amount for which [such] tangible property is sold.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
9 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.

Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson, the court quoted § 67-6-202(a) as general statutory background stating that Tennessee imposes a sales tax on retail sales of tangible personal property. It did not construe or decide the meaning, requirements, coverage, or application of § 67-6-202(a); the ruling instead addressed the contractor exemption and the effect of § 67-6-209(b)-(c). opinion →
CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost, the court cited § 67-6-202 only to identify the general sales tax imposed on retail sales. Its actual analysis concerned the sale-for-resale exemption under § 67-6-102(a)(28)(A) and related regulations, not the meaning or application of § 67-6-202. opinion →
Niuklee, LLC v. Commissioner, TN Dept. of Revenue, the court cited § 67-6-202 only in a general overview of the Tennessee Retailers’ Sales Tax Act. The decision did not construe or apply that statute; its holding concerned the sale-for-resale exemption and the meaning of “bona fide sale” under § 67-6-102(75)(A). opinion →
Books-A-Million, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, the court decided the meaning and application of South Carolina's sales-tax provisions. It mentioned Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-202(a) only to contrast Tennessee's statute with South Carolina's law while recounting a Tennessee appellate decision; it did not construe or apply the Tennessee statute. opinion →
Polk County v. Glenda B. Rogers , d/b/a Ocoee River Rats, the court cites the section while recounting the appellant’s tax-rate argument and resolves the issue under other provisions. opinion →
Polk County v. Rogers, the court mentions the section only in recounting the appellant’s tax rate argument and decides the issue under other provisions. opinion →
Alley-Cassetty Coal Co., Inc. v. Ruth Johnson, Commission of the Tennessee Department of Revenue, the court cites § 67-6-202(a) in support of a gross sales test while deciding whether the taxpayer qualifies for the exemption under § 67-6-206. opinion →
Grapevine Trucking, LLC. v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company, the appellate court quotes the trial court’s use of the section to calculate sales tax but does not decide any rule under the section. opinion →
WALKER'S, INC. v. Farr, the court cites § 67-6-202 as background and resolves the tax treatment of dry-cleaning services under other provisions and a regulation. opinion →

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-202. 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