AI-assisted research summary: This section says tax-liability disputes under this part go through one exclusive procedure, with limited concurrent jurisdiction for certain inheritance and gift tax valuation disputes.
The procedure established by this part is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction for determining liability for all taxes collected or administered by the commissioner of revenue, except that the state board of equalization shall have jurisdiction concurrent with the chancery court in inheritance tax cases in which only issues of valuation are raised, as provided by § 67-8-411 , and the board designated in § 67-8-116 shall have jurisdiction concurrent with the chancery court in gift tax cases in which only issues of valuation are raised, as provided by § 67-8-116 . Acts 1986, ch. 749, § 8. Cited: Bloomingdale's by Mail, Ltd. v. Huddleston, 848 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 703 (Tenn. 1992); Heath v. Creson, 949 S.W.2d 690, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 589 (Tenn. Sept. 9, 2008); Wicker v. Comm'r, Tenn. Dep't of Revenue, 342 S.W.3d 35, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 397 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2010); Swafford v. Comm'r of Revenue, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2012). NOTES TO DECISIONS 1. Jurisdiction. 2. Time Limitations. 3. Refund. 1. Jurisdiction. In addition to case law, the exclusivity provision of T.C.A. § 67-1-1804 establishes an independent basis for holding that the chancery court should not have jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-14-102 in an action involving state revenue. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Bracey, 817 S.W.2d 292, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (Tenn. 1991). With respect to judicial determinations that have the effect, directly or indirectly, of determining liability for taxes that are collected by the Department of Revenue, T.C.A. § 67-1-1804 overrides the jurisdiction that a chancery court would otherwise have under T.C.A. § 16-11-103 . L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Bracey, 817 S.W.2d 292, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (Tenn. 1991). Jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not recognized in state courts over a matter that would not be cognizable in federal court on the basis of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . To do otherwise would undermine the exclusive authority provided in T.C.A. § 67-1-1804 for determining liability with respect to taxes collected or administered by the department of revenue. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Bracey, 817 S.W.2d 292, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (Tenn. 1991). Whatever jurisdiction the Davidson County chancery court may have to issue a declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of a statute pursuant to former T.C.A. § 4-5-224 (now § 4-5-225 ), that authority should not be exercised regarding a statute dealing with state tax revenue if such exercise of jurisdiction would be in conflict with, and undermine, the exclusive jurisdiction for determining liability for taxes that is bestowed by T.C.A. § 67-1-1804 . L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Bracey, 817 S.W.2d 292, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (Tenn. 1991). Where Tennessee Department of Revenue (TDOR) levied upon account of the reorganized debtor but district court had determined that the levy was untimely, Chapter 11 trustee's request for damages or sanctions against state taxing authority was denied because no damages or sanctions were warranted under the facts and circumstances of this case and the question of damages for untimely levy was within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Tennessee courts. In re Faye Foods, Inc., — B.R. —, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 899 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. Mar. 29, 2017), aff'd, Collins v. Tenn. Dep't of Revenue (In re Faye Foods, Inc.), — F.3d —, 2019 FED App. 0106N (6th Cir.), 766 Fed. Appx. 204, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 6695 (6th Cir. Tenn. Mar. 6, 2019). 2. Time Limitations. Trial court properly dismissed a taxpayer's suit against the State challenging an assessment for business taxes owed because, the taxpayer did not timely file an assessment challenge within 90 days from the date of mailing of the assessment as required by T.C.A. § 67-1-1801(b)(1) . Higdon v. State, 404 S.W.3d 478, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 450 (Tenn. May 8, 2013). 3. Refund. Statute does not vest sole and exclusive jurisdiction over refund claims that have been deemed denied due to the passage of time because the statute is not internally inconsistent and does not operate to divest the Commissioner of Revenue, once suit has been filed, of the authority to continue to review a refund claim. Mobility II LLC v. Roberts, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 743 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2016), appeal denied, AT&T Mobility II, LLC v. Roberts, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Feb. 15, 2017).