United Canners, Inc. v. King

CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee
Writing for the CourtFONES; COOPER
Citation696 S.W.2d 525
PartiesUNITED CANNERS, INC., Appellee, v. John K. KING, Commissioner of Revenue, Appellant.
Decision Date08 July 1985

Page 525

696 S.W.2d 525
UNITED CANNERS, INC., Appellee,
v.
John K. KING, Commissioner of Revenue, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville.
July 8, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1985.

C. Blair Scoville, Asst. Atty. Gen., W.J. Michael Cody, Atty. Gen. and Reporter, of counsel, Nashville, for appellant.

John B. Phillips, Jr., Stophel, Caldwell & Heggie, P.C., of counsel, Chattanooga, for appellee.

OPINION

FONES, Justice.

This state revenue case involves the application of the exemption in T.C.A. § 67-4-309(b) extended to a transferee of the ownership of a business, the former owner of which has paid the privilege tax on bottlers imposed by T.C.A. § 67-4-402 for the full tax year in which the transfer was made.

Plaintiff, United Canners, Inc., initiated this action seeking a refund of the tax that was assessed by the commissioner and paid under protest. The chancellor found that United Canners was a transferee under the statute and entitled to recover the tax penalty and interest of $75,936.14. We are of the opinion that plaintiff did not acquire ownership of the bottling business in question and does not qualify for the exemption.

Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, Inc., an Alabama corporation qualified to do

Page 526

business in Tennessee, is a franchisee of Coca-Cola U.S.A., and as such authorized to operate Coca-Cola Bottling Companies in Augusta, Georgia, Birmingham, Alabama, Spartanburg, South Carolina and Chattanooga, Tennessee. Its bottling plant in Chattanooga is located at 4000 Amnicola Highway.

On February 13, 1976, officials of the Alabama corporation organized and incorporated United Canners, Inc., as a Tennessee corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Alabama corporation. On that same date, February 13, 1976, the parent corporation transferred to the subsidiary what was, in effect, the right to market the canning operation at the Chattanooga facility as distinguished from the bottling operation conducted there, which continued to be operated by the Alabama corporation.

The evidence in the case consisted of two stipulations and the testimony of Albert N. Mullis, Jr., General Manager of the Chattanooga facility. The stipulated facts that describe the transfer and its consequences are as follows:

8. United Canners has conducted and is conducting the same canning operations formerly performed by Coca-Cola Bottling and is using the same plant, equipment, and personnel as Coca-Cola Bottling used when it was conducting the canning operation.

9. United Canners has no employees. All personnel engaged in United Canners' canning operations are employed and paid by Coca-Cola Bottling.

10. United Canners owns no physical, tangible assets. All physical, tangible assets utilized in United Canners' canning operations are owned by Coca-Cola Bottling. United Canners makes no lease payments for any physical assets. No transfer of physical, tangible assets was ever made by Coca-Cola Bottling to United Canners.

11. United Canners only asset is accounts receivable from its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Cohen v. Cohen
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 16 Septiembre 1996
    ...must give effect to every word, phrase, clause, and sentence of an act to achieve the legislature's intent. United Canners, Inc. v. King, 696 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tenn.1985). Furthermore, in order to ascertain the legislative intent, the component parts of a statute should be construed, if prac......
  • State v. Odom
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 3 Junio 1996
    ...give effect to every word, phrase, clause, and sentence of the act to achieve the legislature's intent. United Canners, Inc. v. King, 696 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tenn.1985); City of Caryville v. Campbell County, 660 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Tenn.App.1983). "Every word used [in a statute] is presumed to ha......
  • Grizzard v. Nashville Hosp. Capital, LLC, 3:18-cv-00034
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • 30 Julio 2021
    ...are as follows: In construing a statute it is the duty of the court to give every word and phrase meaning. United Canners, Inc. v. King, 696 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tenn.1985). involving statutory construction must be answered in light of reason, having in mind the object of the statute and the mi......
  • Kopsombut-Myint Buddhist Center v. State Bd. of Equalization, KOPSOMBUT-MYINT
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • 29 Octubre 1986
    ...principles. Courts as a general rule recognize the presumption against exempting property from taxation. United Canners, Inc. v. King, 696 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tenn.1985). However, this rule does not apply as strictly in cases involving claimed Tenn.Code Ann. Sec. 67-5-212 exemptions. Mid-State......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Cohen v. Cohen
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 16 Septiembre 1996
    ...must give effect to every word, phrase, clause, and sentence of an act to achieve the legislature's intent. United Canners, Inc. v. King, 696 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tenn.1985). Furthermore, in order to ascertain the legislative intent, the component parts of a statute should be construed, if prac......
  • State v. Odom
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 3 Junio 1996
    ...give effect to every word, phrase, clause, and sentence of the act to achieve the legislature's intent. United Canners, Inc. v. King, 696 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tenn.1985); City of Caryville v. Campbell County, 660 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Tenn.App.1983). "Every word used [in a statute] is presumed to ha......
  • Grizzard v. Nashville Hosp. Capital, LLC, 3:18-cv-00034
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • 30 Julio 2021
    ...are as follows: In construing a statute it is the duty of the court to give every word and phrase meaning. United Canners, Inc. v. King, 696 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tenn.1985). involving statutory construction must be answered in light of reason, having in mind the object of the statute and the mi......
  • Kopsombut-Myint Buddhist Center v. State Bd. of Equalization, KOPSOMBUT-MYINT
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • 29 Octubre 1986
    ...principles. Courts as a general rule recognize the presumption against exempting property from taxation. United Canners, Inc. v. King, 696 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tenn.1985). However, this rule does not apply as strictly in cases involving claimed Tenn.Code Ann. Sec. 67-5-212 exemptions. Mid-State......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT