Tennessee Senate Bill SB2066

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 67, Chapter 4, Part 10, relative to the distribution of revenue from the tax on vapor products.

Summary

SB2066 amends Tennessee’s tax law governing vapor products by directing a portion of the revenue collected from the vapor products tax to a new county-based purpose. Specifically, the bill requires that 30% of the tax revenue collected under this part be deposited with the state treasurer and then allocated equally among Tennessee counties. Those funds must be used for youth nicotine prevention programs and services. The bill does not change the tax rate itself; instead, it changes how a share of existing vapor tax revenue is distributed and spent. It creates a dedicated funding stream for county-level prevention efforts aimed at reducing youth nicotine use, and it applies statewide beginning July 1, 2026.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 67-4-1025(f), by adding a new revenue allocation requirement for vapor products tax receipts. State law would be changed to reserve 30% of those revenues for county distribution, with the state treasurer responsible for allocating the money equally among counties. Counties would receive a new source of funding restricted to youth nicotine prevention programs and services, while the remaining vapor tax revenue would continue to be handled under existing law.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, passing the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee unanimously by a 9-0 vote and being recommended onward to the Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee. No committee transcript is available, but the unanimous vote indicates broad support at that stage. The bill’s focus on youth prevention and use of existing tax revenue likely contributed to the positive reception.

Contention

There is little direct evidence of controversy in the available record, since no committee discussion transcript is provided and the only recorded vote was unanimous. Any potential points of contention would likely center on the reallocation of tax revenue away from general or other existing uses and on whether counties should receive equal shares regardless of local vaping rates or prevention needs. Another possible issue is whether the dedicated funding formula is the best way to address youth nicotine use, but no specific opposition is documented here.