AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 67, Chapter 5, relative to property taxes.
Summary
HB2520 makes a narrow change to Tennessee’s property tax law by amending Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 67-5-1602(c). The bill inserts the words “in writing” after “shall notify,” so that the required notice under that subsection must be provided in written form. The bill does not create a new tax, change tax rates, or alter the overall property tax framework; it simply clarifies the method of notice required under the existing statute.
Because the bill is limited to a wording change, its practical effect is to standardize notice procedures and reduce ambiguity about how notice must be given in the affected property tax context. It takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting a legislative determination that the change serves the public welfare.
Impact
The bill amends Title 67, Chapter 5 of the Tennessee Code Annotated by requiring that the notice referenced in Section 67-5-1602(c) be given in writing. This affects the procedural obligations of the party responsible for providing notice under that statute, likely a local tax official or other administering authority, and may provide clearer documentation and proof of compliance in property tax administration. It does not substantively change property tax liability or assessment rules.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or support in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears technical and noncontroversial, focused on clarifying notice requirements rather than changing tax policy. The immediate effective date suggests the measure was treated as routine or administrative in nature.
Contention
The only plausible point of contention is whether the added written-notice requirement could impose a modest administrative burden or create stricter compliance expectations for the entity that must notify affected parties. However, no specific objections, amendments, or opposing viewpoints are included in the available record. In the absence of discussion or voting history, the bill appears to have been a narrow procedural clarification with little visible controversy.