Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-806 (2024)
Duty of bail bondsman to collect tax - Disposition of collections
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
It shall be the duty of the bail bondsman to collect the tax imposed by this part and to remit the tax to the department in such manner as the department may determine. A special account shall be created by the department into which all taxes collected under this part shall be deposited. All remitted revenues shall be maintained in such segregated account within the department until distributed or deposited, as required in this section, into the civil legal representation of indigents fund authorized and created by § 16-3-808. Such funds derived from the tax imposed and collected pursuant to this part shall be expended or distributed as follows:
- (1) Four percent (4%) shall be distributed to underwrite costs associated with development and provision of continuing education courses mandated by title 40, chapter 11, part 4; and
- (2) The remainder shall be used to provide legal representation to low-income Tennesseans in civil matters in such manner as determined by the supreme court as described in § 16-3-808(c); provided, that one-fourth (1/4) of this remainder shall be allocated to an appropriate statewide nonprofit organization capable of providing continuing legal education, technology support, planning assistance, resource development and other support to organizations delivering civil legal representation to indigents. The remainder shall be distributed to organizations delivering direct assistance to clients with Legal Services Corporation funding as referenced in the Tennessee State Plan for Civil Legal Justice approved in March, 2001, by the Legal Services Corporation.
Acts 2001, ch. 456, § 7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1984–2014 · leading case: Federated Stores Realty, Inc. v. Huddleston, 852 S.W.2d 206 (Tenn. 1992).
Federated Stores Realty, Inc. v. Huddleston, 852 S.W.2d 206 (Tenn. 1992). “" T.C.A. § 67-4-806, -903. The excise tax is levied at the rate of six percent of net earnings, T.”
Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Johnson, 26 S.W.3d 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “T.C.A. § 67-4-806(a). The parties concede that Wachovia is a unitary business as defined in T.”
First Am. Nat'l Bank of Knoxville v. Olsen, 751 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1987). “Plaintiff relies on the Federal statutory language, emphasizing that “[t]he exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except — (1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax…”
Tennessee Growers, Inc. v. King, 682 S.W.2d 203 (Tenn. 1984). “§ 67-2702(a) [now T.C.A. § 67-4-806(a) ] requires corporations doing business in Tennessee to pay an excise tax “equal to six per cent (6%) of the net earnings for the next preceding fiscal year for business done in this state.”
J.C. Penney Nat'l Bank v. Johnson, 19 S.W.3d 831 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “§ 67-4-804(a)(8) and was subject to franchise and excise taxation under T.C.A. §§ 67-4-806 and 67-4-903. In calculating the taxes, the Department of Revenue applied the single-factor, gross receipts apportionment formula applicable to financial institutions found in T.”
Newell Window Furnishing, Inc. v. Johnson, 311 S.W.3d 441 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “Each separate corporation doing business in Tennessee is responsible for payment of the state’s excise tax pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-4-806(a) (1994), which provides that “[a]ll corporations, .”
Tennessee Farmers Assurance Co. v. Loren L. Chumley, 197 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “The Tennessee excise tax, pursuant to T.C.A. § 67-4-806, 3 is accessed annually and is equal to six percent (6%) of the net earnings of a corporation.”
Bellsouth Advert. & Publ'g Corp. v. Chumley, 308 S.W.3d 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Formerly § 67-4-806 etseq. (Repl. 1998). 4 . Formerly Tenn.”
Herschend v. Dir. of Revenue, 896 S.W.2d 458 (Mo. 1995). “Raymond and Kelly Herschend (the Herschends) seek a ruling that Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-4-806 (1994) 1 , a Tennessee corporate tax statute, is an “income tax” within the meaning of § 143.”
Vodafone Americas Holdings Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Richard H. Roberts, No. M2013-00947-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2014). “2d at 421 (citing former statute Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-806 (b)). The need for the variance provision is also plain.”
Wachovia v. Johnson, No. M1999-00166-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2000). “T.C.A. § 67-4-806(a). The parties concede the Wachovia is a unitary business as defined in T.”
L.M. Berry & Co. v. Huddleston, No. 01A01-9809-CH-00487 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 1999). “§ 67-4-903(a), and imposed at the rate of $.25 per $100 of issued and outstanding stock, surplus and undivided profits.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-806(a): 5 cases
Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Johnson, 26 S.W.3d 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “T.C.A. § 67-4-806(a). The parties concede that Wachovia is a unitary business as defined in T.”
Tennessee Growers, Inc. v. King, 682 S.W.2d 203 (Tenn. 1984). “§ 67-2702(a) [now T.C.A. § 67-4-806(a) ] requires corporations doing business in Tennessee to pay an excise tax “equal to six per cent (6%) of the net earnings for the next preceding fiscal year for business done in this state.”
Newell Window Furnishing, Inc. v. Johnson, 311 S.W.3d 441 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “Each separate corporation doing business in Tennessee is responsible for payment of the state’s excise tax pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-4-806(a) (1994), which provides that “[a]ll corporations, .”
Wachovia v. Johnson, No. M1999-00166-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2000). “T.C.A. § 67-4-806(a). The parties concede the Wachovia is a unitary business as defined in T.”
L.M. Berry & Co. v. Huddleston, No. 01A01-9809-CH-00487 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 1999). “§ 67-4-903(a), and imposed at the rate of $.25 per $100 of issued and outstanding stock, surplus and undivided profits.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-806(b): 1 case
First Am. Nat'l Bank of Knoxville v. Olsen, 751 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1987). “Plaintiff relies on the Federal statutory language, emphasizing that “[t]he exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except — (1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.