Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102

Chapter definitions - Definitions applicable for taxation of charges for mobile telecommunications services

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 886,s 1, eff. 5/1/2024.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 53, s 1, eff. 7/1/2023.

Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 783, s 1, eff. 4/8/2022.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 289, s 1, eff. 10/1/2021.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 86, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 796, s 4, eff. 7/15/2020.

Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 646, Secs.s 2, s 3, s 4, s 5, s 6 eff. 10/1/2020.

Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 646, s 1, eff. 10/1/2020.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 157, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 501, s 1, eff. 7/1/2019.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 483, s 1, eff. 7/1/2019.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 392, s 1, eff. 5/10/2019.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 193, Secs.  s 1, s 1, eff. 7/1/2016 and s 1 eff. 7/1/2019.

Acts 1947, ch. 3, §§ 2, 4; C. Supp. 1950, §§ 1248.51, 1248.53 (Williams, §§ 1328.23, 1328.25); Acts 1951, ch. 3, § 1; modified; 1955, ch. 51, §§ 1-5, 10; 1955, ch. 242, §§ 1, 8; impl. am. Acts 1959, ch. 9, § 14; Acts 1959, ch. 15, § 1; 1963, ch. 38, §§ 1, 2, 7; 1963, ch. 172, §§ 1, 2; 1965, ch. 3, § 1; 1965, ch. 335, § 1; 1968, ch. 556, § 1; 1968, ch. 601, § 1; 1969, ch. 95, § 1; 1970, ch. 390, § 1; 1971, ch. 117, § 1; 1971, ch. 149, § 1; 1971, ch. 151, § 1; 1972, ch. 528, § 1; 1972, ch. 709, § 1; 1972, ch. 731, § 1; 1972, ch. 757, § 1; 1972, ch. 769, § 1; 1973, ch. 179, § 1; 1974, ch. 778, § 1; 1976, ch. 442, § 1; 1977, ch. 42, § 1; 1977, ch. 250, § 1; 1978, ch. 565, §§ 1, 2; 1978, ch. 789, §§ 1, 2; 1978, ch. 921, § 1; 1979, ch. 352, § 1; 1980, ch. 602, § 1; 1981, ch. 229, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 67-3002, 67-3017; Acts 1984 (Ex. Sess.), ch. 13, §§ 2, 3, 5; 1984, ch. 523, § 1; 1984, ch. 762, §§ 1-3; 1984, ch. 959, § 1; 1984, ch. 987, § 1; 1985, ch. 25, § 3; 1985, ch. 332, §§ 1, 2; 1985, ch. 389, § 2; 1985, ch. 406, §§ 1, 3, 4, 6, 7; 1985, ch. 416, § 1; 1985, ch. 456, § 1; 1985, ch. 469, §§ 1, 2; 1986, ch. 567, § 1; 1986, ch. 815, § 1; 1986, ch. 924, § 1; 1987, ch. 185, § 1; 1987, ch. 295, § 1; 1987, ch. 428, § 3; 1988, ch. 572, § 1; 1988, ch. 789, § 1; 1989, ch. 312, § 5; 1991, ch. 29, § 1; 1991, ch. 41, § 2; 1991, ch. 80, § 1; 1991, ch. 503, § 3; 1992, ch. 917, § 1; 1992, ch. 1007, §§ 1, 2; 1993, ch. 51, §§ 1-3; 1993, ch. 68, §§ 1, 2; 1993, ch. 409, §§ 1, 2; 1994, ch. 552, § 2; 1994, ch. 852, § 1; 1995, ch. 168, §§ 1, 2; 1995, ch. 185, § 1; 1995, ch. 384, § 1; 1995, ch. 544, §§ 3, 4; 1996, ch. 721, §§ 1, 2; 1996, ch. 729, § 1; 1996, ch. 739, § 1; 1996, ch. 770, § 1; 1996, ch. 922, § 1; 1997, ch. 385, § 1; 1997, ch. 451, §§ 1, 2; 1998, ch. 732, § 1; 1998, ch. 976, § 1; 1998, ch. 1038, § 1; 1998, ch. 1057, §§ 1, 2; 1999, ch. 413, §§ 1, 3; 1999, ch. 423, § 4; 1999, ch. 484, §§ 1-3; 2002, ch. 708, § 1; 2002, ch. 719, §§ 1-4; 2002, ch. 856, § 5b; 2003, ch. 9, § 1; 2003, ch. 357, §§ 3-16; 2004, ch. 782, §§ 1-6, 15; 2004, ch. 924, § 17; 2004, ch. 959, §§ 1-4, 59, 60, 68; 2005, ch. 311, §§ 1, 2; 2005, ch. 398, § 2; 2005, ch. 499, §§ 7, 19, 20, 48-50, 52-55, 60, 68; 2006, ch. 975, § 1; 2006, ch. 1019, §§ 33, 34, 44; 2007, ch. 602, §§ 35, 36, 41, 42, 51, 53, 57-68, 133, 134; 2008, ch. 1106, §§ 9, 11, 18, 22, 25, 26; 2009, ch. 530, §§ 8, 18, 24, 35, 50, 53, 56, 114; 2010, ch. 1134, §§ 1, 33; 2011, ch. 72, § 1; 2011, ch. 508, §§ 30, 32; 2012, ch. 842, § 8; 2013, ch. 480, § 1; 2014, ch. 994, § 1; 2015, ch. 52, § 1; 2015, ch. 81, § 1; 2015, ch. 249, § 1; 2015, ch. 273, § 3; 2015, ch. 420, § 1; 2015, ch. 504, § 17; 2015, ch. 514, § 21; 2016, ch. 1001, § 1; 2017, ch. 193, § 1; 2019, ch. 157, § 1; 2019, ch. 392, § 1; 2019, ch. 483, § 1; 2019, ch. 501, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson
Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson (2004) tenn · cites it 22× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13) (1998). There is no dispute that the catalysts are necessary to and primarily for the fabrication or processing of tangible personal property for resale or consumption and that Eastman is a manufacturer.”
CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost (2010) tenn · cites it 21× “For purposes relevant to this appeal, a “dealer” is defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (a)(8)(B) (Supp.”
Covington Pike Toyota, Inc. v. Cardwell (1992) tenn · cites it 15× “The issue presented in this sales tax appeal is whether sale of extended warranty contracts on automobiles constitutes “the performing for a consideration of any repair services” within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(iv), thus making it subject to sales tax.”
Freedom Broadcasting of TN, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue (2002) tennctapp · cites it 15× “Section 67-6-102(29) of the Tennessee Code defines tangible personal property as “personal property, which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other manner perceptible to the senses.”
L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Bracey (1991) tenn · cites it 18× “Bean’s constitutional challenge to Tennessee's recently amended *293 sales tax statute, T.C.A. § 67-6-102. We conclude that the chancellor’s ruling was correct in all respects and affirm.”
Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Co. v. Johnson (2003) tenn · cites it 4× “The statute interpreted by the Kingsport court is currently codified as Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-6-102(24)(E)(i), and it exempts certain items of personal property from taxes based on their sale, use, storage, or consumption.”
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson (2005) tennctapp · cites it 21× “] Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(33(A) (2003).”
Prodigy Services Corp., Inc. v. Johnson (2003) tennctapp · cites it 13× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(25)(F)(iii)(Supp.”
Eusco, Inc. v. Huddleston (1992) tenn · cites it 15× “While it is true that a substantial part of Eusco’s costs were for purchasing and installing the hydraulic booms, Eusco made no separate charge for installation services as is required for the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(vi)., In each of the sales, the…”
SunTrust Bank, Nashville v. Johnson (2000) tennctapp · cites it 5× “2000) (“dealer”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (21) (“person”).”
Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston (1998) tenn · cites it 25× “The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on all of the substantive issues presented, including the determination that the transactions at issue were subject to sales taxes on “installation services” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (23)(F)(vi). The Court of Appeals,…”
LeTourneau Sales & Service, Inc. v. Olsen (1985) tenn · cites it 11× “” The Commissioner’s position is buttressed by T.C.A. § 67-6-102(13)(F)(iv) which provides that a taxable “sale at retail” shall include “any repair services with respect to, any kind of tangible personal property” performed for a consideration.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(1) — 3 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(11) — 1 case
Beare Co. v. Olsen (1986) tenn
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(12) — 3 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(12)(A) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(12)(D)(ii) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(12)(E) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(12)(F) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13) — 4 cases
Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson (2004) tenn “Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13) (1998). There is no dispute that the catalysts are necessary to and primarily for the fabrication or processing of tangible personal property for resale or consumption and that Eastman is a manufacturer.”
Freedom Broadcasting of TN, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue (2002) tennctapp “Section 67-6-102(29) of the Tennessee Code defines tangible personal property as “personal property, which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other manner perceptible to the senses.”
At & T CORP. v. Chumley (2005) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13)(A) — 6 cases
Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson (2004) tenn “Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13) (1998). There is no dispute that the catalysts are necessary to and primarily for the fabrication or processing of tangible personal property for resale or consumption and that Eastman is a manufacturer.”
Freedom Broadcasting of TN, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue (2002) tennctapp “Section 67-6-102(29) of the Tennessee Code defines tangible personal property as “personal property, which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other manner perceptible to the senses.”
Eusco, Inc. v. Huddleston (1992) tenn “While it is true that a substantial part of Eusco’s costs were for purchasing and installing the hydraulic booms, Eusco made no separate charge for installation services as is required for the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(vi)., In each of the sales, the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13)(A)(1983) — 1 case
Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston (1998) tenn “The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on all of the substantive issues presented, including the determination that the transactions at issue were subject to sales taxes on “installation services” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (23)(F)(vi). The Court of Appeals,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13)(E) — 3 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13)(F) — 2 cases
Covington Pike Toyota, Inc. v. Cardwell (1992) tenn “The issue presented in this sales tax appeal is whether sale of extended warranty contracts on automobiles constitutes “the performing for a consideration of any repair services” within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(iv), thus making it subject to sales tax.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13)(F)(iii) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13)(F)(iv) — 2 cases
LeTourneau Sales & Service, Inc. v. Olsen (1985) tenn “” The Commissioner’s position is buttressed by T.C.A. § 67-6-102(13)(F)(iv) which provides that a taxable “sale at retail” shall include “any repair services with respect to, any kind of tangible personal property” performed for a consideration.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13)(F)(v) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13)(F)(vi) — 1 case
Eusco, Inc. v. Huddleston (1992) tenn “While it is true that a substantial part of Eusco’s costs were for purchasing and installing the hydraulic booms, Eusco made no separate charge for installation services as is required for the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(vi)., In each of the sales, the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13)(F)(vi)(1983) — 1 case
Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston (1998) tenn “The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on all of the substantive issues presented, including the determination that the transactions at issue were subject to sales taxes on “installation services” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (23)(F)(vi). The Court of Appeals,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(14) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(14)(A) — 8 cases
LeTourneau Sales & Service, Inc. v. Olsen (1985) tenn “” The Commissioner’s position is buttressed by T.C.A. § 67-6-102(13)(F)(iv) which provides that a taxable “sale at retail” shall include “any repair services with respect to, any kind of tangible personal property” performed for a consideration.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(14)(B) — 5 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(14)(E) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(14)(F) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(15) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(16) — 2 cases
Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson (2004) tenn “Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13) (1998). There is no dispute that the catalysts are necessary to and primarily for the fabrication or processing of tangible personal property for resale or consumption and that Eastman is a manufacturer.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(17) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(18) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(18)(A) — 3 cases
Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson (2004) tenn “Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13) (1998). There is no dispute that the catalysts are necessary to and primarily for the fabrication or processing of tangible personal property for resale or consumption and that Eastman is a manufacturer.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(18)(B) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(19) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(22)(A) — 4 cases
Eusco, Inc. v. Huddleston (1992) tenn “While it is true that a substantial part of Eusco’s costs were for purchasing and installing the hydraulic booms, Eusco made no separate charge for installation services as is required for the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(vi)., In each of the sales, the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(22)(A)(1989) — 1 case
Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston (1998) tenn “The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on all of the substantive issues presented, including the determination that the transactions at issue were subject to sales taxes on “installation services” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (23)(F)(vi). The Court of Appeals,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(22)(E) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(22)(F)(iv) — 3 cases
Covington Pike Toyota, Inc. v. Cardwell (1992) tenn “The issue presented in this sales tax appeal is whether sale of extended warranty contracts on automobiles constitutes “the performing for a consideration of any repair services” within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(iv), thus making it subject to sales tax.”
Reimann v. Huddleston (1993) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(22)(F)(ix) — 2 cases
Covington Pike Toyota, Inc. v. Cardwell (1992) tenn “The issue presented in this sales tax appeal is whether sale of extended warranty contracts on automobiles constitutes “the performing for a consideration of any repair services” within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(iv), thus making it subject to sales tax.”
Reimann v. Huddleston (1993) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(22)(F)(vi) — 1 case
Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston (1998) tenn “The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on all of the substantive issues presented, including the determination that the transactions at issue were subject to sales taxes on “installation services” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (23)(F)(vi). The Court of Appeals,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(23)(A) — 10 cases
Eusco, Inc. v. Huddleston (1992) tenn “While it is true that a substantial part of Eusco’s costs were for purchasing and installing the hydraulic booms, Eusco made no separate charge for installation services as is required for the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(vi)., In each of the sales, the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(23)(A)(1989) — 1 case
Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston (1998) tenn “The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on all of the substantive issues presented, including the determination that the transactions at issue were subject to sales taxes on “installation services” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (23)(F)(vi). The Court of Appeals,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(23)(E) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(23)(E)(i) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(23)(F) — 1 case
Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston (1998) tenn “The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on all of the substantive issues presented, including the determination that the transactions at issue were subject to sales taxes on “installation services” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (23)(F)(vi). The Court of Appeals,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(23)(F)(iv) — 2 cases
Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston (1998) tenn “The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on all of the substantive issues presented, including the determination that the transactions at issue were subject to sales taxes on “installation services” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (23)(F)(vi). The Court of Appeals,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(23)(F)(vi) — 2 cases
Colemill Enterprises, Inc. v. Huddleston (1998) tenn “The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on all of the substantive issues presented, including the determination that the transactions at issue were subject to sales taxes on “installation services” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (23)(F)(vi). The Court of Appeals,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(24) — 1 case
Covington Pike Toyota, Inc. v. Cardwell (1992) tenn “The issue presented in this sales tax appeal is whether sale of extended warranty contracts on automobiles constitutes “the performing for a consideration of any repair services” within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(iv), thus making it subject to sales tax.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(24)(A) — 3 cases
State v. Sanders (1996) tenn
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(24)(E)(i) — 2 cases
Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson (2004) tenn “Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13) (1998). There is no dispute that the catalysts are necessary to and primarily for the fabrication or processing of tangible personal property for resale or consumption and that Eastman is a manufacturer.”
Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Co. v. Johnson (2003) tenn “The statute interpreted by the Kingsport court is currently codified as Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-6-102(24)(E)(i), and it exempts certain items of personal property from taxes based on their sale, use, storage, or consumption.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(24)(F)(iii) — 1 case
Freedom Broadcasting of TN, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue (2002) tennctapp “Section 67-6-102(29) of the Tennessee Code defines tangible personal property as “personal property, which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other manner perceptible to the senses.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(25)(A) — 2 cases
Freedom Broadcasting of TN, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue (2002) tennctapp “Section 67-6-102(29) of the Tennessee Code defines tangible personal property as “personal property, which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other manner perceptible to the senses.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(25)(B) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(25)(F)(iii) — 1 case
Prodigy Services Corp., Inc. v. Johnson (2003) tennctapp “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(25)(F)(iii)(Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(28) — 1 case
State v. Sanders (1996) tenn
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(28)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(29) — 3 cases
Freedom Broadcasting of TN, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue (2002) tennctapp “Section 67-6-102(29) of the Tennessee Code defines tangible personal property as “personal property, which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other manner perceptible to the senses.”
Prodigy Services Corp., Inc. v. Johnson (2003) tennctapp “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(25)(F)(iii)(Supp.”
At & T CORP. v. Chumley (2005) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(30) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(30)(A) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(30)(B) — 2 cases
Freedom Broadcasting of TN, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue (2002) tennctapp “Section 67-6-102(29) of the Tennessee Code defines tangible personal property as “personal property, which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other manner perceptible to the senses.”
At & T CORP. v. Chumley (2005) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(30)(D) — 3 cases
Freedom Broadcasting of TN, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue (2002) tennctapp “Section 67-6-102(29) of the Tennessee Code defines tangible personal property as “personal property, which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other manner perceptible to the senses.”
At & T CORP. v. Chumley (2005) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(31) — 3 cases
Prodigy Services Corp., Inc. v. Johnson (2003) tennctapp “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(25)(F)(iii)(Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(31)(A) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(31)(C) — 1 case
Prodigy Services Corp., Inc. v. Johnson (2003) tennctapp “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(25)(F)(iii)(Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(32) — 1 case
At & T CORP. v. Chumley (2005) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(34) — 1 case
At & T CORP. v. Chumley (2005) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(34)(A) — 2 cases
WALKER'S, INC. v. Farr (2010) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(34)(A)(2006) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(34)(E)(ii) — 1 case
WALKER'S, INC. v. Farr (2010) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(34)(F)(v) — 1 case
WALKER'S, INC. v. Farr (2010) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(34)(F)(vi) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(36)(A) — 1 case
WALKER'S, INC. v. Farr (2010) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(4) — 4 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(4)(F) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(5) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(6) — 2 cases
Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Co. v. Johnson (2003) tenn “The statute interpreted by the Kingsport court is currently codified as Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-6-102(24)(E)(i), and it exempts certain items of personal property from taxes based on their sale, use, storage, or consumption.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(6)(J) — 2 cases
L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Bracey (1991) tenn “Bean’s constitutional challenge to Tennessee's recently amended *293 sales tax statute, T.C.A. § 67-6-102. We conclude that the chancellor’s ruling was correct in all respects and affirm.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(66)(A)(iii) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(7) — 3 cases
Eusco, Inc. v. Huddleston (1992) tenn “While it is true that a substantial part of Eusco’s costs were for purchasing and installing the hydraulic booms, Eusco made no separate charge for installation services as is required for the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (22)(F)(vi)., In each of the sales, the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(7)(C) — 1 case
SunTrust Bank, Nashville v. Johnson (2000) tennctapp “2000) (“dealer”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (21) (“person”).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(75)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(78) — 1 case
WALKER'S, INC. v. Farr (2010) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(78)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(79) — 1 case
WALKER'S, INC. v. Farr (2010) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(8) — 5 cases
Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson (2004) tenn “Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13) (1998). There is no dispute that the catalysts are necessary to and primarily for the fabrication or processing of tangible personal property for resale or consumption and that Eastman is a manufacturer.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(8)(A) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(81)(A) — 1 case
WALKER'S, INC. v. Farr (2010) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(88) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(9) — 1 case
Hyatt v. Taylor (1990) tenn
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(94)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(D)(i) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a) — 1 case
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson (2005) tennctapp “] Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(33(A) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(13)(A) — 1 case
Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson (2004) tenn “Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(13) (1998). There is no dispute that the catalysts are necessary to and primarily for the fabrication or processing of tangible personal property for resale or consumption and that Eastman is a manufacturer.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(21) — 1 case
CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost (2010) tenn “For purposes relevant to this appeal, a “dealer” is defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (a)(8)(B) (Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(25)(A) — 1 case
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson (2005) tennctapp “] Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(33(A) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(25)(E) — 1 case
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson (2005) tennctapp “] Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(33(A) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(25)(F)(iii) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(27) — 1 case
At & T CORP. v. Chumley (2005) tennctapp
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(27)(A) — 1 case
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson (2005) tennctapp “] Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(33(A) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(28)(A) — 2 cases
CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost (2010) tenn “For purposes relevant to this appeal, a “dealer” is defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (a)(8)(B) (Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(3) — 1 case
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson (2005) tennctapp “] Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(33(A) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(31) — 1 case
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson (2005) tennctapp “] Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(33(A) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(32) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(32)(D) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(34) — 1 case
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson (2005) tennctapp “] Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(33(A) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(34)(A) — 1 case
CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost (2010) tenn “For purposes relevant to this appeal, a “dealer” is defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102 (a)(8)(B) (Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(71) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(9) — 1 case
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Johnson (2005) tennctapp “] Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(33(A) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(a)(ll)(C) — 1 case
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.