Tennessee Senate Bill SB2018

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Engrossed: 2/23/26
• Enrolled: 3/19/26
• Passed: 4/1/26
• Chaptered: 4/6/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 25; Title 8, Chapter 34; Title 8, Chapter 35 and Title 8, Chapter 36, relative to retirement.

Summary

SB2018 revises several provisions in Tennessee’s retirement statutes, primarily to streamline how retirement-plan records are produced in response to subpoenas and to clarify benefit-payment and reemployment rules. For deferred compensation plans and the state retirement system, the bill allows the custodian or employee to satisfy a subpoena duces tecum by filing certified copies of the requested records, along with an affidavit or declaration authenticating them, rather than requiring personal appearance in most cases. Personal attendance of the custodian may be compelled only when needed to resolve a good-faith dispute about the accuracy of the records, and the subpoena must expressly state when the statutory procedure is not sufficient. The bill also changes how monthly retirement benefits are handled when a payee dies, specifying that payments cease in the month of death except where another provision applies, and clarifying that the final monthly payment is still issued for the month of death to the deceased retired member or beneficiary, depending on the type of benefit. In addition, it deletes one existing subsection in the retirement code and adds a new rule for certain temporary reemployment cases: if the retirement system later determines that a member who retired between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2027, did not have a bona fide separation of service, the system must treat the payments as in-service distributions and make any necessary tax-reporting corrections. In practical terms, the bill affects the administration of Tennessee’s deferred compensation plans and public retirement systems, including record custodians, retirees, beneficiaries, and members who return to temporary reemployment. It updates evidentiary procedures for subpoena compliance, clarifies when retirement benefits stop after death, and addresses tax and reporting consequences when a retirement is later found not to have met separation-of-service requirements. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law. The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill advanced unanimously in the Senate State & Local Government Committee and passed both floor stages without any recorded dissent, indicating broad agreement on the need to modernize retirement-system procedures and clarify administrative rules. The main points of potential contention are limited and technical rather than ideological. The most notable issue is the new treatment of members later found not to have had a bona fide separation of service, which could affect retirement status, tax reporting, and benefit administration for a defined group of reemployed retirees. Another possible concern is the reduced need for live testimony from records custodians, though the bill preserves personal attendance when there is a good-faith dispute over accuracy.

Impact

SB2018 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 8-25, 8-34, 8-35, and 8-36 to change procedures governing retirement-system and deferred-compensation records, death-related benefit payments, and temporary reemployment after retirement. It makes certified records and affidavits/declarations sufficient to comply with most subpoenas, limits when custodians must appear in person, clarifies the final month of benefit eligibility after a payee’s death, deletes one existing retirement provision, and adds a rule requiring in-service distribution treatment and tax-reporting corrections when a retirement is later found to lack a bona fide separation of service.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been received positively and with little opposition. It passed the Senate committee unanimously and then cleared floor votes overwhelmingly, with no recorded nays at either stage. The voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a technical cleanup and administrative clarification rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

There was no recorded committee debate or floor opposition, so no major public contention is evident in the available materials. The most likely areas of concern are technical: whether the subpoena procedure sufficiently protects parties seeking records, and how the new in-service distribution rule may affect retirees whose separation from service is later questioned. Those issues would primarily matter to retirement-system administrators, employers, retirees, and litigants seeking retirement records.