Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116 (2026)
Confidential information
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Licensees shall not divulge, nor shall they in any manner be required to divulge, any information that is communicated to them or obtained by them by the reason of the confidential nature of their employment. The information shall be deemed confidential; provided, however, that nothing in this subsection (a) shall be construed as prohibiting the disclosure of information required to be disclosed by the standards of the public accounting profession in reporting on the examination of financial statements or as prohibiting disclosures in investigations or proceedings under this chapter, in ethical investigations conducted by private professional organizations or in the course of peer reviews, or to other persons active in the organization performing services for that client on a need to know basis or to persons in the entity who need this information for the sole purpose of assuring quality control. Disclosure of confidential information pursuant to this subsection (a) shall not constitute a waiver of the confidential nature of the information for any other purpose.
- (b) Information derived as a result of such professional employment is deemed to be confidential, except that nothing in this chapter shall be construed as modifying, changing or affecting the criminal or bankruptcy laws of this state or of the United States.
Acts 1980, ch. 518, § 16; 1998, ch. 700, § 8; 1999, ch. 65, §§ 7, 8, 9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Fed. Ins. Co. v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 816 S.W.2d 328 (Tenn. 1991).
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 816 S.W.2d 328 (Tenn. 1991). “We granted the appeal in this case to address important questions concerning the scope of the privilege granted under the provisions of T.C.A. § 62-1-116 relative to information communicated or obtained by an accountant by reason of the confidential nature of their employment.”
Colorado State Bd. of Acct. v. Zaveral Boosalis Raisch, 960 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1998). “1-23 (1995); Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116 (1997); Tex.Rev.”
Brunton v. Kruger, 2014 IL App (4th) 130421 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “2d at 329 -30 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116 ); Ernst & Ernst v.”
Limestone Trail Apts. GP, LLC et al. v. Tax Credit Holdings - Limestone Trail, L.L.C. et al. (M.D. Tenn. 2026). “) The Partnership argues that the documents covered by the subpoena should not be produced because they fall within Tennessee’s statutory accountant privilege, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116 (a), and because it has not waived that privilege.”
Limestone Trail Apts. GP, LLC et al. v. Tax Credit Holdings - Limestone Trail, L.L.C. et al. (M.D. Tenn. 2026). “) The Partnership argues that the documents covered by the subpoena should not be produced because they fall within Tennessee’s statutory accountant privilege, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116 (a), and because it has not waived that privilege.”
John F. Pinkard, M.D. v. HCA Health Servs. of Tennessee, Inc. D/B/A Summit Med. Ctr., 545 S.W.3d 443 (2017). “” 9 Other privileges include but are not limited to the accountant-client privilege, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116 , and the psychologist-patient privilege.”
Larry Beckwith v. LBMC, P.C. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “1972) (explaining that accountants may be liable in malpractice for “failure to employ the degree of knowledge, skill and judgment usually possessed by members of [the accounting] profession”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116 (2009) (describing the duty of licensed public accountants…”
Rhonda Willeford v. Timothy P. Klepper, M. D. (Tenn. 2020). “, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 62-1-116 (accountant-client privilege), 23-3-105 (attorney- client privilege), 24-1-206 (clergy-penitent privilege), 24-1-211(f) (deaf person- interpreter privilege), 24-1-207 (psychiatrist-patient privilege); see also Tenn.”
Payton Castillo v. David Lloyd Rex, M.D. (2025). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116 ; Arthur Anderson, 816 S.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116(b) — 1 case
Colorado State Bd. of Acct. v. Zaveral Boosalis Raisch, 960 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1998). “1-23 (1995); Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-1-116 (1997); Tex.Rev.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.