AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40 and Title 67, relative to privilege tax.
HB0878 revises Tennessee’s privilege tax reporting and collection requirements for certain court clerks. The bill requires clerks, on request of the state treasurer, to provide quarterly reports to the commissioner of revenue and the state treasurer showing aggregate privilege tax amounts collected and remitted, plus case-level information on taxes that were suspended, released, waived, remitted, or not collected and the reasons why. It also authorizes the state treasurer to request additional documentation about waiver policies, defendant notification practices, collection agency use, payment plans, and other collection efforts.
The bill also amends the law governing privilege taxes under Title 67 by clarifying that any privilege tax a clerk fails to collect and pay over to the Department of Revenue becomes a debt of the clerk. The reporting and documentation requirements apply to privilege taxes imposed on or after July 1, 2026, and the act takes effect upon becoming law.
HB0878 increases state oversight of privilege tax administration by court clerks and expands the information available to the state treasurer and Department of Revenue about how these taxes are assessed, waived, collected, and remitted. It affects Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 40 and 67, including the provisions governing privilege taxes in criminal and court-related contexts, and it creates a clearer accountability framework by treating uncollected privilege tax as a debt of the clerk. Courts and clerks may need to adjust recordkeeping, notification procedures, waiver policies, and collection practices to comply with the new reporting and disclosure obligations.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and moved through the legislative process with strong votes, including unanimous committee recommendations and near-unanimous floor passage. The available voting history suggests little opposition overall, with only two nay votes on the House floor and no recorded dissent in the later Senate vote. The general sentiment is that the measure was viewed as an administrative and accountability reform rather than a controversial policy change.
The main points of potential contention are administrative burden and state oversight of local court clerks. The bill requires detailed quarterly reporting, disclosure of waiver policies, notification practices, and collection methods, which could be seen as increasing compliance obligations for clerks and courts. It also makes clerks financially responsible for privilege taxes they fail to collect and remit, which may raise concerns about liability, especially where noncollection results from court orders, waiver practices, or defendant inability to pay. Despite these possible concerns, the recorded votes indicate little organized opposition.