ÿWPC4 …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáðw@ø8 0L@ 0JŒ 0TÖ 0^* 0hˆ 0rð 0|b 0†Þ 0d 1uô U,i 0d• U,ù U6%B)[ 0N„ BÒDCï AM2U*"© D3Ëv~þvÓ| 0@O AOÆÞ 0D¤ D/è B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ ½Q x°°3|x·  ¥ ¦ D§ ¨ I© ª « D¬ D­ Ó€· > ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d>‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à d####7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌJuly€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÞXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›BEAMAN€BOTTLING€COMPANY,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9512„CH„00567Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àÌJOE€B.€HUDDLESTON,€asà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌCommissioner€of€Revenue€forà à)à àNo.€93„1979„IIIÌÙ€€ÙœßL€')&;+'h|às` ç `€€Lß›the€State€of€Tennessee,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€"¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€"XÔJAMES€W.€CAMERON,€IIIÌC.€MARK€PICKRELLÌHarwell€Howard€HyneÌ€Gabbert€&€Manner,€P.C.Ì1800€First€American€CenterÌ315€Deaderick€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37238Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌJONATHAN€D.€SHELLÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAttorney€General's€OfficeÌTax€DivisionÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€2121ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37243„0489Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€"¼ÔSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòÔ€"°ÔOÔ€"¼Ô€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓóóÔ€"XÔà àPlaintiff,€Beaman€Bottling€Company€(ð ðBeamanðð),€appeals€theÏdecision€of€the€chancery€court€granting€summary€judgment€in€favorÏof€defendant,€the€Commissioner€of€Revenue€for€the€State€ofÏTennessee€(ð ðCommissionerðð).€€On€appeal,€Beaman€claims€that€theÏcourt€erred€in€finding€that€Beaman€was€not€exempt€from€the€taxÏimposed€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€67„4„402(b),€theÏprivilege€tax€on€bottlers€and€manufactures€of€soft€drinks.€€TheÏfacts€out€of€which€this€matter€arose€are€as€follows.à àÌÌà àBeaman€is€a€Tennessee€corporation€with€its€principle€placeÏof€business€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.€€Beaman€manufactures,Ïœpurchases,€sells,›€and€distributes€soft€drinks.€€It€manufactures€Ïsoft€drinks€at€its€facility€in€Nashville,€Tennessee€and€stores€theÏproduct€in€a€warehouse€at€the€facility.€œ€It€trucks€soft€drinksÏdirectly€to€its€customers€from€the€warehouse.€€Beaman€charges€oneÏprice€to€€bottlers€who€purchase€in€high€volume€and€another€priceÍto€wholesale€customers€such€as€Kroger€and€other€grocery€outlets.€ÏBeaman€calculates€the€bottlers'€price€for€the€soft€drinks€itÏmanufacturers€by€adding€together€the€manufacturing€costsÏ(ingredients,€container,€closure€or€cap,€and€packaging),Ïmanufacturing€overhead€(labor,€equipment€costs,€administrativeÏexpense),€and€profit.€€The€wholesalers'€price€is€higher€than€theÏbottlers'€price€because€Beaman€takes€into€account€its€distributionÏcosts€and€profit€from€sales€activity.ÌÌà àIn€July€1993,€Beaman€filed€suit€to€obtain€a€partial€refundÏof€the€taxes€it€had€paid€to€the€Tennessee€Department€of€RevenueÏpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€67„4„402(b)€for€theÏperiod€of€July€1989€to€June€1991.€€Beaman€claimed€that€the€statuteÏentitled€it€to€a€refund€of€$711,538.88.€€In€June€1994,€BeamanÏfiled€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Following€oral€argument,€theÏcourt€denied€Beaman's€motion€and€held€that€the€statute€did€notÏentitle€it€to€a€refund.€€The€court€dismissed€the€complaint€inÏSeptember€1995,€and€Beaman€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal.ÌÌà àBeaman€has€presented€two€issues.€€The€first€is€"[w]hetherÏthe€separate€distribution€business€of€a€soft€drink€manufacturer€isÏan€'incidental€business'€for€purposes€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„4„301,"€and€the€second€is€"[w]hether€Tennessee's€gross„receipt€taxÏon€the€privilege€of€manufacturing€soft€drinks€should€include€taxesÏon€the€separate€distribution€operation€of€a€soft€drinkÏmanufacturer?"ÌÌà àWe€discuss€these€issues€together.€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€67„4„402(b)€imposes€the€"bottlers€and€manufacturers€ofÏsoft€drink"€tax.€€That€section€provides€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àòòImposition€of€Taxóó.›€€A€person€manufacturing€or€œproduc„ing›€and€selling€within€this€state€any€bottled€softÏdrinks€and€a€person€importing€or€causing€to€beÏimported€bottled€soft€drinks€into€this€state€fromÏoutside€the€state€and€selling€such€imported€bottledÏsoft€drinks€within€this€state€shall,€for€theÏprivilege€of€engaging€in€such€business,€pay€to€theÏstate€for€state€purposes€an€amount€equal€to€one€andÏnine„tenths€percent€(1.9%)€of€the€person's€grossÏreceipts€derived€from€such€business.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„4„402(b)(Supp.€1995).€€ÓÓ"Such€business"€forÏthe€purpose€of€determining€Beaman's€tax€liability€refers€to€theÏbusiness€of€manufacturing€and€òòsellingóó€bottled€soft€drinks.€ÏAnother€section€defines€the€term€"gross€receipts"€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à"Gross€receipts,"€for€the€purposes€of€taxesÏadministered€under€this€part,€means€total€receiptsÏbefore€anything€is€deducted,€but€does€not€includeÏreceipts€from€incidental€business€when€suchÏincidental€business,€if€separately€carried€on,Ïwould€not€be€subject€to€a€tax€measured€by€grossÏreceipts€under€the€provisions€of€this€part,€partÏnumber€2,€or€parts€4„6€of€this€chapter€.€.€.€.Ìòòò òœÌÓÓId.ó óóó›€ðð€67„4„301(3)(A)(1994).€€An€incidental€business€is€a€"businessÏcarried€on€separately€and€not€a€part€of€the€business€made€theÏsubject€of€privilege€œtaxation.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€ðð€67„4„301(5).€€Pursuant€toÏthese€sections,€the€gross€receipts€derived€from€the€business€ofÏmanufacturing€and€selling€bottled€soft€drinks€is€subject€toÏtaxation.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€67„4„402(b).€€That€portion€of€a€taxpayer's€grossÏreceipts€that€is€derived€from€an€incidental€business€is€exemptedÏfrom€such€taxation.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€67„4„301(3)(A)€(1994).€€It€is€thisÍexemption€that€Beaman€claims.ÌÌ›à àThe€record€is€clear€that€Beaman€has€engaged€in€theÏprivilege€of€manufacturing€and€selling€bottled€soft€drinks€withinÏthe€State€of€Tennessee.€€Therefore,€Beaman€is€subject€to€theÏprivilege€tax.€€Its€tax€obligation€is€measured€by€the€grossÏreceipts€derived€from€the€business€of€manufacturing€and€selling.€ÏThe€gross€receipts€are€its€total€receipts€before€anything€isÏdeducted.ÌÌà àBeaman€argues€that€its€manufacturing€business€is€entirelyÏseparate€from€its€distribution€business.€€In€support€of€thisÏargument,€Beaman€states€that€its€manufacturing€and€distributionÏbusinesses€have€different€employees,€equipment,€compensationÏarrangements,€and€separate€pricing€structures€to€account€for€theirÏdifferent€costs.€€When€Beaman€sells€bottled€soft€drinks€to€largeÏcustomers€who€do€not€require€distribution,€the€sale€price€does€notÏinclude€any€distribution€expenses,€but€when€it€sells€soft€drinksÏto€Kroger,€Red€Foods,€Giant€Foods,€or€other€retailers€who€requireÏdistribution,€the€sale€price€includes€distribution€œcosts.›€€BeamanÏargues€that€because€it€conducts€a€distribution€business€which€isÏseparate€œfrom€its›€manufacturing€and€selling€business€theÏdistribution€business€is€an€"incidental€business"€under€sectionÏ67„4„301(5)€and€is€exempt€from€the€privilege€tax.€€Thus,€BeamanÏcontends€that€the€cost€of€its€œdistribution›€œbusiness›€should€beÏdeducted€from€the€gross€receipts€derived€from€the€sale€of€its€softÍdrinks€before€the€Commissioner€calculates€Beaman's€tax€liability.ÌÌœà àWe€think€the€statute€is€clear€that€Beaman's€tax€base€is€itsÏgross€receipts€derived€from€the€sale€of€the€soft€drinks€itÏmanufactures€before€òòanything€is€deductedóó.€€Beaman's€arguments€areÏpremised€on€a€slippery€foundation.€€It€argues€that€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€67„4„402(b)€taxes€only€the€manufacturing€ofÏbottled€soft€drinks€and€that€anything€not€a€part€of€theÏmanufacturing€process€is€not€subject€to€taxation.€€However,€theÏstatute€is€clear€that€the€taxable€privilege€is€the€manufacture€andÏòòòòsaleóóóó€of€bottled€soft€drinks.€€To€merely€manufacture€soft€drinksÏdoes€not€give€rise€to€a€taxable€event.€€That€is,€there€is€no€taxÏdue€under€the€statute€until€the€soft€drink€is€both€manufacturedÏand€sold.€ÌÌà àBeaman€ignores€the€part€of€the€statute€that€includes€theÏòòsellingóó€of€bottled€soft€drinks€as€a€part€of€the€taxable€privilege.€ÏBeaman€would€have€this€court€disregard€the€sale€part€of€theÏtaxable€privilege€and€end€the€taxable€event€when€the€soft€drinksÏare€manufactured€and€bottled.€€Such€an€interpretation€ignores€theÏplain€wording€of€the€statute.€€The€taxable€event€is€defined€asÏengaging€in€the€privilege€of€manufacturing€and€òòsellingóó€bottledÏsoft€drinks€within€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„4„402(b)(Supp.€1995).ÌÌà àBeaman€relied€primarily€on€ò òòòKroger€Co.€v.€Tollettó óóó,€608ÍS.W.2d€846€(Tenn.€1980);€however,€we€are€the€opinion€that€itsÏreliance€is€misplaced.€€Kroger,€unlike€Beaman,€was€not€a€bottlerÏor€a€manufacturer.€€Kroger€purchased€soft€drinks€from€a€foreignÏmanufacturer€and€imported€them€into€Tennessee.€€Kroger€then€resoldÏthe€soft€drinks.€€€ò òòòId.óó€ó óat€847.€€Kroger€was€only€a€distributor€ofÏsoft€drinks€manufactured€by€someone€else.€€Kroger€was,€however,Ïsubject€to€the€privilege€tax€because€it€engaged€in€the€privilegeÏof€importing€and€selling€soft€drinks.€€The€statute€imposed€the€taxÏon€Kroger€instead€of€the€manufacturer€who€was€beyond€Tennessee'sÏreach€and€had€not€paid€the€tax.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€848.ÌÌà àThe€issue€in€ò òòòKrogeró óóó€was€whether€the€Commissioner€shouldÏcalculate€the€tax€due€based€on€Kroger's€gross€receipts€from€theÏsale€of€the€soft€drinks€or€by€the€manufacturer's€gross€receipts,Ïi.e.,€Kroger's€cost.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Our€supreme€court€held€that€the€stateÏmeasured€the€bottler's€tax€by€the€gross€receipts€of€theÏmanufacture€and€sale€of€bottled€soft€drinks.€€This€figure€was€theÏsame€as€the€price€Kroger€paid€for€the€soft€drinks.€€Because€KrogerÏwas€acting€as€a€substitute€for€the€bottler,€it€was€liable€for€theÏtax.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóThe€only€possible€application€of€ò òòòKrogeró óóó€to€the€instantÏcase€is€the€holding€that€the€Commissioner€determines€the€amount€ofÏthe€tax€based€on€the€manufacturer's€gross€receipts.€€ÌÌà àBeaman€has€the€difficult€burden€of€proving€entitlement€toÏan€exemption.€€It€is€a€burden€that€neither€the€facts€of€this€caseÏnor€the€law€will€allow€Beaman€to€meet.€€Tax€exemption€statutesÍ"must€be€construed€strictly€against€the€taxpayer€with€the€taxpayerÏbearing€the€burden€of€proving€entitlement€to€the€exemption."€Ïò òòòJersey€Miniere€Zinc€Co.€v.€Jacksonó óóó,€774€S.W.2d€928,€930€(Tenn.Ï1989).€€Beaman€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€its€operationsÏmeet€the€requirements€of€the€statutory€definition€of€incidentalÏbusiness.€€ò òòòId.;€Shearin€v.€Woodsó óóó,€597€S.W.2d€895,€896€(Tenn.Ï1980).€€ÓÓà8 à[I]n€a€suit€against€the€state€by€a€taxpayer€claiming€anÏexemption€from€taxation€the€burden€is€on€the€taxpayer€to€establishÏ[the]€exemption;€every€presumption€is€against€it€and€a€well„founded€doubt€is€fatal€to€the€claim.ÌÌò òòòWoods€v.€General€Oils,€Inc.ó óóó,€558€S.W.2d€433,€435€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌÓÓÌà àThis€provision€is€an€exemption€rather€than€a€tax€imposingÏstatute€as€Beaman€argues.€€The€statute€does€not€impose€on€theÏCommissioner€the€burden€to€prove€the€negative,€i.e.,€that€theseÏreceipts€are€not€from€an€incidental€business.€€If€this€argumentÏwere€true,€it€would€create,€in€effect,€a€presumption€in€favor€ofÏthe€taxpayer€which€would€nullify€the€underlying€privilege€taxÏstatutes€to€which€the€provision€applies.€€We€find€nothing€in€theÏstatute€to€support€this€argument.€€The€burden€is€on€Beaman€toÏprove€that€its€distribution€operation€is€an€incidental€business€asÏdefined€in€section€67„4„301(5).€€If€Beaman€fails€in€that€effort,Ïits€gross€receipts€are€subject€to€taxation.€€ÌÌà àBeaman€cannot€show€that€a€portion€of€its€gross€saleÏreceipts€is€exempt€as€receipts€from€an€incidental€business.€Ï"'Incidental€business'€means€a€business€carried€on€separately€andÍnot€a€part€of€the€business€made€the€subject€of€privilegeÏtaxation."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„4„301(5)(1994).€€Nothing€in€thisÏrecord€supports€Beaman's€conclusion€that€it€is€conducting€aÏseparate€distribution€business€and€that€such€business€is€not€aÏpart€of€the€business€of€selling€the€soft€drinks€it€manufactures.€ÏWe€find€nothing€in€the€record€that€specifically€identifies€thoseÏactivities€Beaman€contends€are€included€in€the€separateÏdistribution€business.ÌÌà àThe€taxable€privilege€includes€manufacturing,€selling,€and,Ïby€necessity,€distribution.€€The€record€shows€that€theÏdistribution€business€is€nothing€more€than€Beaman's€delivery€ofÏits€product€to€a€customer€as€part€of€the€sale.€€For€example,ÏBeaman€manufactures€soft€drinks,€sells€the€soft€drinks,€and€Ïtrucks€the€soft€drinks€to€its€customers,€that€is,€distributes€theÏsoft€drinks.€€These€activities€are€conducted€by€the€sameÏcorporation€albeit€by€different€employees.€€ÌÌà àWe€have€found€no€decision€nor€has€Beaman€cited€a€decisionÏthat€provides€any€guidance€on€the€proper€interpretation€ofÏ"incidental€business"€as€set€forth€in€section€67„4„301(5).€ÏHowever,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€Beaman's€analysis€is€contraryÏto€the€plain€language€of€the€statute.€€The€mere€fact€that€BeamanÏdoes€not€use€its€delivery€trucks€during€the€bottling€process€orÏthat€its€truck€drivers€do€not€operate€its€bottling€machines€doesÏnot€make€the€distribution€of€the€final€product€"a€business€carriedÍon€separately€and€not€a€part€of€the€business"€of€manufacturing€andÏselling€soft€drinks.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€delivery€ofÏthe€final€product€is€an€integral€part€of€the€business€ofÏmanufacturing€and€selling€bottled€soft€drinks,€and€as€such,€it€isÏnot€an€"incidental€business."ÌÌà àBeaman€also€argues€that€the€statute€violates€the€EqualÏProtection€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€€We€are€ofÏthe€opinion€that€the€tax€imposes€an€equal€burden€on€similarlyÏsituated€persons.€€Moreover,€Beaman's€equal€protection€argument€isÏnot€properly€before€this€court€because€Beaman€did€not€raise€it€inÏits€complaint€nor€in€the€court€below.€€ò òòòSee€Irvin€v.€Binkleyó óóó,€577ÏS.W.2d€677,€679€(Tenn.€App.€1978).€€Nevertheless,€even€if€BeamanÏhad€properly€raised€the€claim,€it€has€no€merit.ÌÌà à"The€test€must€be€whether€the€statute€rests€on€a€reasonableÏbasis€and€it€will€not€be€held€discriminatory€if€there€is€anyÏpossible€reason€or€justification€for€its€passage."€€ò òòòGenesco,€Inc.Ïv.€Woodsó óóó,€578€S.W.2d€639,€641€(Tenn.€1979)(citation€omitted).€Ï"'[T]he€burden€of€showing€that€a€classification€is€unreasonableÏand€arbitrary€is€placed€upon€the€individual€challenging€theÏstatute;€and€if€any€state€of€facts€can€reasonably€be€conceived€toÏjustify€the€classification€or€if€the€unreasonableness€of€the€classÏis€fairly€debatable,€the€statute€must€be€upheld.'"€€ò òòòBates€v.ÏAlexanderó óóó,€749€S.W.2d€742,€743€(Tenn.€1988)(quoting€ò òòòHarrison€v.ÏSchraderó óóó,€569€S.W.2d€822,€826€(Tenn.€1978)).€€"Legislation€mayÍimpose€special€burdens€upon€defined€classes€in€order€to€achieveÏpermissible€ends."€€ò òòòRinaldi€v.€Yeageró óóó,€384€U.S.€305,€309,€86€S.ÏCt.€1497,€1499,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€577,€580€(1966);€ò òòòGenescoó óóó,€578€S.W.2dÏat€641.€€"[T]he€Equal€Protection€Clause€does€not€require€absoluteÏequality€or€precisely€equal€advantages."€€ò òòòSan€Antonio€Indep.ÏSchool€Dist.€v.€Rodriguez,€ó óóó411€U.S.€1,€24,€93€S.€Ct.€1278,Ï1291,€36€L.€Ed.€2d€16,€37€(1973);€òòò òGenescoó óóó,€578€S.W.2d€at€641.€ÏThe€constitution€requires€only€that€there€be€"some€relevance€toÏthe€purpose€for€which€the€classification€is€made."€ò òòòBaxstrom€v.ÏHeroldó óóó,€383€U.S.€107,€111,€86€S.€Ct.€760,€763,€15€L.€Ed.€2d€620,Ï624€(1966);€ò òòòGenescoó óóó,€578€S.W.2d€at€641.€€Therefore,€Beaman€mustÏsatisfy€a€very€difficult€burden€in€order€to€prove€that€the€taxÏstatute€violates€the€equal€protection€clause.€ÌÌà àHere,€the€statute€imposes€an€equal€burden€on€allÏmanufacturers€and€all€importers€of€bottled€soft€drinks.€€The€taxÏis€imposed€at€the€rate€of€1.9%.€€The€tax€base€is€the€grossÏreceipts€derived€by€the€manufacturer€from€the€sale€in€Tennessee€ofÏsoft€drinks€it€manufactures.€€The€tax€is€imposed€on€theÏmanufacturer€whether€it€is€located€in€Tennessee€or€elsewhere.€€TheÏtax€is€imposed€on€an€importer€as€a€substitute€payor€for€theÏmanufacturer€from€whom€it€purchases€soft€drinks€when€theÏmanufacturer€is€beyond€the€reach€of€Tennessee's€taxingÏjurisdiction€or€when€the€manufacturer€has€not€voluntarily€paid€theÏtax.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„4„402(b)(Supp.€1995).€€In€either€event,Ïthe€tax€is€measured€by€the€manufacturer's€gross€receipts.€€Ìà àÌà àHere,€Beaman€is€taxed€because€it€manufactures€and€sellsÏsoft€drinks.€€Beaman€contends€that€it€is€unfairly€taxed€becauseÏits€distribution€costs€are€included€in€its€tax€base€whereas€theÏdistribution€costs€of€an€importer€are€not€included€in€theÏimporter's€tax€base.€€We€think,€as€the€Commissioner€points€out,ÏBeaman€is€comparing€apples€and€oranges.€€Beaman's€tax€base€is€itsÏgross€receipts€from€the€sale€of€its€soft€drinks€no€matter€whatÏcosts€are€recovered€in€its€sales€price€because€it€is€theÏmanufacturer.€€An€importer's€tax€obligation€is€measured€by€itsÏacquisition€costs€for€the€soft€drinks,€not€by€its€receipts€fromÏtheir€sale.€€The€importer's€cost€of€doing€business,€other€than€theÏprice€it€pays€for€the€soft€drinks,€is€irrelevant€for€purposes€ofÏcalculating€its€tax€debt.€€An€importer's€tax€base€is€calculated€byÏexactly€the€same€measure€as€its€manufacturer's€tax€base,€that€is,Ïby€the€manufacturer's€gross€receipts.ÌÌà àHere,€Beaman€is€a€manufacturer.€€It€is€not€merely€aÏdistributor€of€soft€drinks€bottled€by€someone€else.€€Beaman€doesÏdistribute€soft€drinks€bottled€by€others€but€those€sales€are€notÏthe€subject€of€this€case.€€Beaman€is€not€being€taxed€because€itÏdistributes€soft€drinks.€€It€is€being€taxed€because€itÏmanufactures€and€sells€the€soft€drinks€it€is€distributing.€ÌÌà àTherefore,€we€hold€that€Beaman€is€not€entitled€to€deductÏits€distribution€costs€from€its€gross€receipts€prior€toÍcalculating€its€tax€obligation.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€affirmed,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏfurther€necessary€proceedings.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏplaintiff/appellant,€Beaman€Bottling€Company.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›