Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Court Reviews Whether a Partnership Existed Between Two Parties

RICHARD SWECKER, et al., v. STEVEN MICHAEL SWECKER, et al., and, DINAH SLUDER, et al., IN RE: ESTATE OF JOSEPH JAMES SWECKER, STEVEN SWECKER, et al., v. RICHARD ALLEN SWECKER (Tenn. Ct. App. January 26, 2011).

Plaintiffs brought this action to establish a partnership with the deceased against the estate's personal representative and others. Defendants answered, denying the allegation that a partnership existed, and filed a counter-complaint, asserting the estate should be reimbursed for plaintiffs' mismanagement of the farm, and for monies the plaintiffs removed from the estate's bank account.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court held that deceased and plaintiff had entered into a partnership and that the partnership would be wound up by the Court and the partnership assets distributed. Also, the Trial Court held that plaintiffs would be required to pay rent on the house they occupied on the farm for several years.

On appeal, we affirm the finding that a partnership existed, but reverse the Trial Court's holding that plaintiffs owed the estate rent for occupancy of the house on the farm. We remand, with directions to the Court to wind up the partnership.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/sweckerr_012611.pdf

Monday, January 24, 2011

TN Supreme Court Reviews Whether Taxpayer’s Capital Gains were Business Earnings that were Subject to the Excise Tax

BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, LP v. RICHARD ROBERTS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE (Tenn. January 24, 2011).

Taxpayer is a Delaware limited partnership that produces, sells, and distributes ice cream in Tennessee and elsewhere. At issue in this appeal is the Tennessee Department of Revenue's excise tax assessment on capital gains from a one- time stock transaction between Taxpayer and its holding company. Taxpayer sought a refund in chancery court, challenging the validity of the tax assessment on statutory and federal constitutional grounds. Both Taxpayer and the Department moved for summary judgment. The chancery court granted summary judgment to Taxpayer, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Based on the uncontested facts in the record, we hold that Taxpayer's capital gains were business earnings pursuant to the functional test provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-4-2004(1) (Supp. 2000) and therefore subject to the excise tax. Additionally, we hold that the tax assessment was constitutional pursuant to the unitary business principle. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and enter summary judgment for the Department. We remand to the trial court to determine the amount of excise tax related to Taxpayer's capital gains.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/bluebell_012411.pdf