value privilege in Texas

2025The Texas franchise tax “‘tax[es]. . . the value of the privilege’ to transact business in Texas, which ‘confers economic benefits, including the opportunity to realize gross income and the right to invoke the protections of local law.’” Id. (citing In re Nestle USA, Inc., 387 S.W.3d 610, 622 (Tex. 2012) (quoting Bullock v. Nat’l Bancshares Corp., 584 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex. 1979))).

1992Garrison Assistant Attorney General [1] Although former section 403.105 of the Government Code has been repealed, for brevity we will refer to this provision by the Government Code citation, rather than by citing the session law that adopted it. [2] The franchise tax is imposed on the value of the privilege of transacting business in Texas, Bullock v. National Bancshares Corp., 584 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1979), and is based upon the corporation's taxable capital.

2025The Texas franchise tax “‘tax[es]. . . the value of the privilege’ to transact business in Texas, which ‘confers economic benefits, including the opportunity to realize gross income and the right to invoke the protections of local law.’” Id. (citing In re Nestle USA, Inc., 387 S.W.3d 610, 622 (Tex. 2012) (quoting Bullock v. Nat’l Bancshares Corp., 584 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex. 1979))).

2017See id. §§ 171.101 (allowing taxable entity to subtract cost of goods sold to determine taxable margin for franchise tax calculation), .1012 (addressing how cost of goods sold determined); see generally Combs v. Newpark Res., Inc., 422 S.W.3d 46 , 47–8 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.) (describing structure and formula for calculating franchise tax, which is “tax on the value and privilege of doing business in Texas” (citing In re Nestle USA, Inc., 387 S.W.3d 610, 612 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding))).

2017See id. §§ 171.101 (allowing taxable entity to subtract cost of goods sold to determine taxable margin for franchise tax calculation), .1012 (addressing how cost of goods sold determined); see generally Combs v. Newpark Res., Inc., 422 S.W.3d 46 , 47–8 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.) (describing structure and formula for calculating franchise tax, which is “tax on the value and privilege of doing business in Texas” (citing In re Nestle USA, Inc., 387 S.W.3d 610, 612 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding))).

2017See Tex. Tax Code §§ 171.101(a)(l)(B)(ii)(a)(l) (allowing taxable entity to subtract cost of goods sold from total revenues to determine taxable margin for franchise tax calculation), .1012; see generally Combs v. Newpark Res., Inc., 422 S.W.3d 46, 47-48 (Tex. App.— Austin 2013, no pet.) (describing structure and formula for calculating franchise tax, which is “tax on the value and privilege of doing business in Texas” (citing In re Nestle USA Inc., 387 S.W.3d 610, 612 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding))).

2023The franchise tax is levied on those businesses “for the privilege of doing business in this State,” with the goal that the amount of tax levied “should approximate the value of this privilege.” General Dynamics Corp. v. Sharp, 919 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, writ denied).

1999See Bullock v. National Bancshares Corp. , 584 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex. 1979); General Dynamics Corp. v. Sharp , 919 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, writ denied).

2004The purposes of pleadings are: •define the issues to be tried; Murray v. O & A Express, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Tex. 1982); •advise the court of the facts that are relied on to sustain or defend the suit; National Life Assurance Company of Texas v. Neves, 370 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.); and •record for the benefit of all who may subsequently be concerned the matters actually in issue and determined by the judgment.

2004The purposes of pleadings are: • define the issues to be tried; Murray v. O & A Express, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Tex. 1982); • advise the court of the facts that are relied on to sustain or defend the suit; National Life Assurance Company of Texas v. Neves, 370 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1963, writ ref’d n.r.e.); and • record for the benefit of all who may subsequently be concerned the matters actually in issue and determined by the judgment.

2004The purposes of pleadings are: • define the issues to be tried; Murray v. O & A Express, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Tex.1982); • advise the court of the facts that are relied on to sustain or defend the suit; National Life Assurance Company of Texas v. Neves, 870 S.W.2d 144 , 146 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.); and • record for the benefit of all who may subsequently be concerned the matters actually in issue and determined by the judgment.

2004The purposes of pleadings are: •define the issues to be tried; Murray v. O & A Express, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Tex. 1982); •advise the court of the facts that are relied on to sustain or defend the suit; National Life Assurance Company of Texas v. Neves, 370 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.); and •record for the benefit of all who may subsequently be concerned the matters actually in issue and determined by the judgment.

2003See Bullock v. National Bancshares Corp., 584 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex.1979); Upjohn Co. v. Rylander, 38 S.W.3d 600, 603 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. denied). [5] We discern USAA's argument from several sections of its brief when viewed as a whole.

2003See Bullock v. National Bancshares Corp., 584 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex.1979); Upjohn Co. v. Rylander, 38 S.W.3d 600, 603 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. denied). .

1995Corp. v. Isbell, 202 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1947, no writ) (a franchise tax is a tax assessed by the state against a corporation for the privilege of doing business in the state; the purpose of the law is "to exact such a tax commensurate with the value of such privilege so granted”); see also Houston Oil Co. v. Lawson, 175 S.W.2d 716, 723 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1943, writ ref'd) ("a franchise tax is neither a tax upon the property or the income of a corporation, though both are to be regarded in measuring the tax”).

1995App.--Austin 1947, no writ) (a franchise tax is a tax assessed by the state against a corporation for the privilege of doing business in the state; the purpose of the law is "to exact such a tax commensurate with the value of such privilege so granted"); see also Houston Oil Co. v. Lawson , 175 S.W.2d 716, 723 (Tex. Civ.

1976With respect to the Texas franchise tax, the courts of this state have held that it “is not a tax upon the property of the corporation nor one upon its income, though both are to be regarded in measuring such tax, but a charge made by the state against the corporation for the privilege granted it to do business in the state. . . . [I]t was the purpose of the Legislature to levy against the corporation a tax commensurate with the value of the privilege granted ..” United North & South Development Co. v. Heath, 78 S.W.2d 650, 652 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1934, writ ref’d).

1976With respect to the Texas franchise tax, the courts of this state have held that it "is not a tax upon the property of the corporation nor one upon its income, though both are to be regarded in measuring such tax, but a charge made by the state against the corporation for the privilege granted it to do business in the state. . . . [I]t was the purpose of the Legislature to levy against the corporation a tax commensurate with the value of the privilege granted. . . ." United North & South Development Co. v. Heath, 78 S.W.2d 650, 652 (Tex. Civ.App.—Austin 1934, writ ref'd).

2012Dynamics Corp. v. Bullock, 547 S.W.2d 255, 257 (Tex.1976) (stating that it "was the purpose of the Legislature to levy against the corporation a tax commensurate with the value of the privilege granted”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). .

1986Bullock v. National Bancshares Corp., 584 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1016 , 100 S.Ct. 667 , 62 L.Ed.2d 645 (1980); General Dynamics Corp. v. Bullock, 547 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1009 , 98 S.Ct. 717 , 54 L.Ed.2d 751 (1978).

1996See Galveston, Harrisburg, & San Antonio Ry., 97 S.W. at 75 ; Coffee v. Castleberry, 258 S.W. 889 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1924), referred and affirmed, 272 S.W. 767, 768 (Tex.Comm’n App.1925, judgm’t adopted).

1996See Galveston, Harrisburg, & San Antonio Ry., 97 S.W. at 75, 79 .

1995Corp. v. Isbell, 202 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1947, no writ) (a franchise tax is a tax assessed by the state against a corporation for the privilege of doing business in the state; the purpose of the law is "to exact such a tax commensurate with the value of such privilege so granted”); see also Houston Oil Co. v. Lawson, 175 S.W.2d 716, 723 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1943, writ ref'd) ("a franchise tax is neither a tax upon the property or the income of a corporation, though both are to be regarded in measuring the tax”).

1976Accord, Riveroaks Development Corp. v. Shepperd, 246 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1952, writ ref'd); Sterling Oil & Refining Corporation v. Isbell, 202 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1947, no writ); Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Lawson, 175 S.W.2d 716, 723 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1943, writ ref'd).

1994We discussed this allocation principle in Sunoco Terminals, Inc. v. Bullock, 756 S.W.2d 418, 420 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988, no writ): The Legislature has decided that the value of the privilege would be determined by the corporation’s taxable capital allocable to Texas.

1994We discussed this allocation principle in Sunoco Terminals, Inc. v Bullock, 756 S.W.2d 418, 420 (Tex. App.--Austin 1988, no writ): The Legislature has decided that the value of the privilege would be determined by the corporation's taxable capital allocable to Texas.

2022Penick v. Penick, 783 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex. 1988). 3 Because of a reimbursement claim’s equitable nature, the trial court considers all facts pertaining to the transaction in making its determination, and we reverse a trial court’s decision only when it abuses its discretion.

2003Id.

2014As the supreme court emphasized, the sexually-oriented-business tax “is not a tax on unpopular speech but a restriction on combining nude dancing ... with the aggravating influence of alcohol consumption.” Texas Entm’t Ass’n, 347 S.W.3d at 287-88 . “[L]ogic and the evidence indicate that the [sexually-oriented-business tax] provides some discouragement to combining nude dancing with alcohol consumption.” Id. at 287 .

2014As the supreme court emphasized, the sexually-oriented-business tax “is not a tax on unpopular speech but a restriction on combining nude dancing ... with the aggravating influence of alcohol consumption.” Texas Entm’t Ass’n, 347 S.W.3d at 287-88 . “[L]ogic and the evidence indicate that the [sexually-oriented-business tax] provides some discouragement to combining nude dancing with alcohol consumption.” Id. at 287 .

2025See 38 Stolz, 42 S.W.3d at 311 (“The amount trapped under the Trapping Statute (as big as the claim is big) may be more than the required retainage under the Retainage Statute (a flat ten percent of contract price or value).”).

2022Driskill v. Ford Motor Co., 269 S.W.3d 199, 203 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.) (citing King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003)). 3 Regarding a reimbursement claim, we give great latitude to the trial court in determining the value of the claim.

2022Driskill v. Ford Motor Co., 269 S.W.3d 199, 203 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.) (citing King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003)). 3 Regarding a reimbursement claim, we give great latitude to the trial court in determining the value of the claim.

2021See id.

2021See Murray, 800 S.W.2d at 828 .

2019See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 .

2018Co. of Am., 981 F. Supp. 581, 602 (N.D.